Barr Sues Over McCain's, Obama's Presence on Texas Ballot

corbettw writes "Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline."

Comments

I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

but I hope they are allowed to run as write-in. Assuming the summary is true.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lallander]

If this is accurate it does sound like he has a valid case.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bsDaemon]

If his case is valid, you'll see some true bi-partisan cooperation in Austin as they speedily pass a repeal of the relevant section of the state code.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

You know what we need? A federal law mandating that the top six political parties automatically get on the ballot for the Presidential election. The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election. This would ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again, but would significantly help third party candidates.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MrCreosote]

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[AuMatar]

THat would require a constitutional amendment, and it leaves election law to the states.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[diamondmagic]

Except for the fact that would be unconstitutional. States select their presidential candidates independently, and the political parties of each state independently nominate their candidate to appear on the ballot.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

Yeah, but would it be a good idea?

An amendment that goes like, "The top six political parties as of the last Presidential election shall be guaranteed ballot access on the following Presidential election. The top six political parties shall be construed to mean the top six parties who get the most votes at the national level, Independent candidates ignored."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bsDaemon]

If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mweather]

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

They've also missed the deadline for running as write-ins. They should rightfully face the same penalties Barr would have to if he made the same mistakes.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[QuickSilver_999]

(with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

I'm hurt... Don't forget us in PA too! And for that matter KY. :)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[torstenvl]

Erm. Connecticut is not a Commonwealth. Massachusetts is.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bsDaemon]

May as well throw in Puerto Rico as well, it'll give Obama an edge.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

That would disenfranchise the voters, who can't sign their name. There are ought to be more of them, than of those, who simply get confused by the ballots...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[diamondmagic]

No it wouldn't. Look up how the process to get on the ballot works today. If there is a "third" party candidate worth anything, they should have no problem getting their state party to get the some thousand signatures for a petition or whatever other way you get on the ballot -- and they usually do not have such a problem.

While we are making an amendment, lets get *rid* of the party system entirely, and just let me cast a vote for multiple people, either approval or preferential voting, say (I think, this too, would need to be done at the state level).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[NoTheory]

Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason? I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal. And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Russ Nelson]

But the states elect the president of the union, not the people. If you don't like that, amend the constitution or move.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Russ Nelson]

The rule of law would be nice, wouldn't it?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Workaphobia]

I never understood what ex post facto meant. I want to say they can't do that but FISA went through, so I guess I just don't understand the law or the constitution.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Workaphobia]

I'd settle for a voting system that isn't as mathematically flawed as multiple-candidate-single-vote/majority-required.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[cnettel]

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Indeed, Switzerland is huge.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Martin Blank]

Ex post facto applies to criminal law, not civil, and generally only applies when it would criminalize an act or make the punishment more severe. A law may retroactively affect the criminality of an action if it reduces or eliminates the criminality or penalty.

It's a bit more complex than that, but that covers most cases.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree, but they absolutely will be placed on the ballot. Rules mean nothing to these people. The political parties themselves *are* the government, so they are above the law.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Manchot]

I don't know about that. What motivation would the Democrats have to permit passage of the bill? Texas is a guaranteed red state which they have no expectation of winning, and without Texas, McCain essentially loses the election. Now, it's likely that McCain would still win even as a write-in candidate, but if the Dems are represented enough in the Texas legislature, I'd think that they'd try to block passage of the bill using any means at their disposal.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrchaotica]

A federal law mandating that the top six political parties...

Why the top six? Why not the top seven? Or eight?

The top six would be determined by the top six vote getters, nationally, as of the previous presidential election.

I thought you were trying to reduce the incumbent parties' advantage, not enhance it!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrchaotica]

But the states elect the president of the union, not the people.

Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Devout_IPUite]

I think the constitutional amendment was the topic of this particular sub-thread actually...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Devout_IPUite]

How about a nice Multiple-candidate-single-vote/plurality-required?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Devout_IPUite]

Run-off voting would keep the parties as they are more or less. You'd just see a few Democrats vs a few Republicans, so the major candidates might be Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, and Romney right now or something like that. People would often probably pick both candidates (or all three, four, five) from their party and then some independents they kinda like.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[taliesin1077]

I don't know what the laws are in Texas for write-in candidates, but in California, one has to actually register for write-in candidate status. If someone writes in a candidate that has not registered for write-in status, their ballot is tossed without being counted for the election in which they wrote a name in.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bloodstar]

Texas has a very strict Write-in policy. If you haven't declared as a write in within 70 days of the election, you can't be a write-in. if this were to be upheld, the only person people would be permitted to vote for would be ... Bob Barr.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Hal_Porter]

If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

You could join the Commonwealth if you wanted. Find some English expat, have him swear and Oath of Fealty to HRH Queen Elizabeth II and then you can all sign an Oath of Fealty to him. All land will be collective and as serfs you will be expected to work for the collective six days per week.

I'd be willing to come over and act as Lord, once we can get details like droit de seigneur sorted out.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrsteveman1]

Don't forget the KY? Just what are you planning here, exactly?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Hal_Porter]

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

That would disenfranchise the voters, who can't sign their name. There are ought to be more of them, than of those, who simply get confused by the ballots...

It would also disenfranchise Deceased Americans in Chicago.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[DaHat]

Federal law? Best to read the constitution and realize that such an option would be relegated to the state and NOT the federal government without a federal constitutional amendment which would not be likely to pass.

Good luck passing such a law in all 50 states!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

One has to apply to allow others to write in their name? That makes no sense.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Toonol]

There is one set of laws that cover federal presidential elections. That governs the electoral college. All this voting you do in November is not federal, it's to pick your state's representatives to the real voting, done the second week in December. States are free to use whatever method they wish (well, not totally free). It's interesting how many people misunderstand how our elections work. There is not, never has been, a national vote on anything in the United States.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ctetc007]

I'm not familiar with what the difference between a commonwealth and our United States is. Could you explain for me?

I just checked the wiki article, and it said that a commonwealth is a state governed for the common good instead of for the benefit of a specific class. I thought that the United States, when originally founded, was not formed to benefit a specific class. It was a government "for the People." Of course, today, it seems like our administrations favor one class or another, depending on who's in power, but that just naturally happens due to personal selfishness.

Not as a question challenging your point, but I was wondering how is that kind of favoritism prevented in a Commonwealth State?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hclewk]

If I were to write in John Smith, which of the 12,000 John Smith's would get my vote? It makes perfect sense when you realize that names are not unique.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[grahamd0]

What? Were you speaking English there?

Or maybe keep the constitution and move the importance of the office of President to the majority of Americans as relatively little to do with their day to day lives.

What part of that sentence makes any sense at all?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[grahamd0]

Nowhere does the US constitution establish and intelligence requirement for voting.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[grahamd0]

I naively hope that the rule of law wins out in this case. I have no expectation of that, but I hope.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[billcopc]

Careful what you wish for... if things keep getting uglier down there, people just might move. There are plenty of other countries that treat their citizens like criminals, deny them basic rights, detain them indefinitely without a trial (nor formal arrest).

Usually people are trying to get out of those countries, which is why the US and Canada presently enjoy a very diverse cultural landscape. People over here are used to the easy life. If that goes sour, they will tolerate much less abuse than our Asian and middle-eastern friends, and will head straight for Western Europe.

20 years from now, you might hear the French and Germans complain "these American immigrants are stealing our jobs!"

Re:I hope they're removed,

[billcopc]

What would you suggest as a replacement ?

A big ol' yes/no for each candidate ? Tally them up, and whoever gets the most "Yes" answers wins ?

That would be slightly more equitable than the current system, but it'd be hell to tally up, especially considering half the country can't count, and the other half is tallied by Diebold machines :P

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OrangeTide]

I don't see it as a problem, and it seems unfair to indepedents. The parties should be able to figure out their own rules, Texas is ran by Republicans and Democrats. They made this rule, were they not aware of it?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OrangeTide]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War. The repercussions have rung through the last century plus. The federal government was not meant to be a massive overriding force in our lives. States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OrangeTide]

Thank you! It saddens me that 90% of the population have such a poor understanding of their own system of government. Do high schools no longer require a class in Government? Do people just not care what the reality is and just make up facts that suit them? It's insane that people think it is important to vote but not important to understand what the fuck is going on.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tyrione]

Basically an Instant Run-off system which would finally break the grip of the Duopoly in this once grand Republic.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mpe]

How about we just make everyone collect signatures, including the top two parties?

Shouldn't it be the candidates who had to collect the signatures. If you were going for a "same rules for everyone" idea. Maybe at the same time consider separating party membership from voter registration.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mpe]

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level.

AFAIK there are no federal elections in the US. On the other hand if the US Government was creating such (pointless) laws they might be too busy to do worst things.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[calmofthestorm]

There are many many ways to do such an election fairly. Look at Condorcet, single-transferable vote, and instant runoff.

Pretty much any system is superior to that in use in the United States.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Bazman]

Single Transferrable Vote is what you want. Although it'll take some explaining to some of the populace. So offer alternatives.

At the voting stations, have two lines, a fast track and a slow track.

In the fast track, you get a ballot paper with the usual STV instructions - place a 1 next to your first choice candidate, a 2 in your second choice candidate, and so on until you have no more preferences between the remaining candidates.

In the slow track, a computer screen. It says "Which of these do you want to win?" and a list of candidates. The voter selects one.

Then it says "If that guy doesn't win, which of these would you like to win?" followed by a list of the remaining candidates and a further option "They're all as bad as each other".

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Xonstantine]

I fail to see really how the failures of 2000 were "catastrophic" in any sense of the word. Nobody died, the government didn't shut down, and there was a peaceful succession of power.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[profplump]

That implies that states must choose their electoral college votes by popular election. Unless someone snuck an amendment to the federal constitution through while I wasn't looking, that is not the case.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[profplump]

And senators for that matter. There's a whole series of bad amendments in there -- 16-18 -- some so bad that we actually took them back out. Even the 19th, which is a good idea, was only necessary because of a poorly drafted 14th amendment.

And now people want to directly elect the president. Progressive era 2.0 here we come.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[profplump]

He's suggesting that the federal government should be relatively unimportant in your daily life, and therefore that the choice of the president would be significantly less important for most people, and more uniform across all the citizens of a state.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[profplump]

If by "interesting" you mean "sad" then I agree wholeheartedly.

Frankly I don't think you should be allowed to vote if you can't explain the general process of the election and the duties of the office with 90% accuracy. Instead of jury duty, let's require people to take (or test out of) civics courses.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[johnlcallaway]

Forcing all the states to vote the same way would be unconstitutional. The constitution outlines how many electoral votes each state gets, and then leaves it up to each state to determine how to allocate them. The only real influence it has is in stating who can't be in the electoral college, such as the president or I believe anyone in the US house or senate.

Any changes would require a constitutional amendment.

It appears to me the creators of the original constitution felt it was important for the citizens of each state to decide how to cast their electoral votes. We may not like it, but that's the way it is. This was all before the ability to instantly count ballots and transmit results across thousands of miles, so while it may not be relevant any longer, it's still in the constitution.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[rts008]

Well, I can understand the phrase:"Or maybe keep the constitution ..."
but after that?? WTF??

I wonder if he will share whatever he's smoking/drinking? It must be good stuff, whatever it is!

Look at the bright side- if you have one of those days where communication with people seem convoluted and arduous, you can depend on /. to straighten things out and make all things clear!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[LaskoVortex]

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilized countries have.

That would be great in the United States of Pretendland. But in the United States of America, you have a federation of states and this federation has an electoral college. The states get to make their own laws about how they assign their electoral college votes. Since Texas has made those laws they should be obeyed. We see similar appeals for obyeing the law when it comes to not smoking pot or not killing people in cold blood or not drinking and driving. We call this concept the "Rule of Law".

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

Few other countries (civilized or otherwise) are as big as to be a Union of states.

Your definition of "civilized" may vary, but:

Russia is a Union of States.
Brasil is a Union of States.
Mexico is a Union of States.
Germany is a Union of States.
Austria is a Union of States.

The concept seems to be quite common.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

All voting systems are mathematically flawed. It's a mathematical property and can't be avoided. (check Election Math as a reference).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves. Now if you'd like to make some big spiel about how the Union winning the civil war lead to negative repercussions for your state's rights, then I'm simply going to point out that the previous system was far, far worse. It allowed slavery. Yes it did. So arguing for states rights to be reinstated in order to protect people's rights is not really a solid argument.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jandersen]

I don't know that it is fair to call it a loss. I realize that it is always annoying and inconvenient to have to accomodate the needs of others in the name of cooperation, but this is very much in the future of the world; it has to be if we are to not just survive, but create a great future. With the internet, globalisation, international travel etc, there are simply too many issues that can only be tackled by international cooperation. We are slowly approaching a situation where the idea of an actual international government becomes the natural thing.

Both the EU and the US are examples that this can actually be done. There is a lot of room for improvement, of course, but I'm confident that we will get there.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[stinerman]

Actually Barr would be the only candidate on the ballot. There are several write-ins filed. Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin are examples.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[willmorton]

Both the EU and the US are examples that this can actually be done.

Except that the EU is much closer to the original vision of the US than the modern US is. As the GP says, there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights). The modern US is in nearly all significant ways a unitary country with provinces, rather than a union of sovereign states as originally intended.

Of course, this is mostly because the EU is ~40 years old. Give it a century or so, and we'll probably see it go the same way.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mpe]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War.

Can a civil war end in any other way?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[cheater512]

Yeah but thats not something the politicians want.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[meringuoid]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War.

But you won it, too. That's the thing about civil wars.

States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

Like the inalienable right to keep and bear slaves.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[drsquare]

So you'd prefer to return to a situation where Alabama can discriminate against blacks, without any interference from that terrible federal government.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[drsquare]

If you're throwing all that 'taxation without representation' business out of the window, then logically you should be required to join the British Empire.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fbjon]

but would significantly help third party candidates.

I like the phrasing of "third parties". It's as if this whole business is a transaction between two parties, but some third parties may be involved. As if, heh.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

one vote per candidate would be a simple enough solution

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Kagura]

Your post is silly.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

This reference does not consider non-ranked systems. Yes, all ranked systems fail Arrow's theorem, but there exist other systems. One such system is range voting. Give each candidate a 0 to 9 rating. This gives more ability to show preference than any ranked system. The candidates ratings are totaled and the highest total wins. Because there is only one round of eliminations, there aren't weird effects where a candidate will endorse a less popular party to increase his chances of winning. Also, there isn't any disagreement about how to count preference. A simpler way to do range voting would be a range of 0 to 1. This is approval voting and can be done on current ballots.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Pikoro]

How about everyone rates the people running for president as their first, second, and third choice by marking as such. 3 points for first pick, 2 points for second pick, 1 point for third pick, 0 points for not picked.

Then we tally up all 3 and see who wins.

This would sure even things out a whole lot more I would think. It would force candidates to campaign outside their party boundries in order to get the popular vote.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

I think STV encourages candidates to endorse less popular parties. This way they put more distance between themselves and their competitors. A better system is range voting, which does not do this. It also allows more preference to be recorded. In short, you rate each candidate 0 to 9.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

Superior to the ones you have mentioned is range voting. It allows the voter to record even more preference, as it allows ties and weightings.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

better off to have range voting and prevent unproportional promotion of less popular parties with IRV.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and New Jersey have signed legislation to give their votes to the national popular vote. The legislation goes into effect when more than half of the electoral votes come from states that have this legislation. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Contact your state representative.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[allanc]

Participation in the United States political process.

We're gonna need it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jellomizer]

This would only help Obama. Texas being a solid red state so by removing both (giving the impression of fairness) McCain looses his electorates. And a large Republican stage goes away. Sure there is always a right in. But the question is how many people know about it. I mean only a small portion of people actually vote, and now if it isn't on the ballet. It would go further. This may be the first time a 3rd party candidate wins an electoral votes in a long time.

Getting elected isn't about getting the most people to be for you. It is all about targeting the correct areas. Let NY, CA, Rot they will vote Democrat anyways but lets focus Ohio and Florida. They even will figure out where teh swing counties are and campaign there.

That is why I am kinda disapointed that I live in a solid blue state. That means the democrates take our vote for granted and will not do much to get our vote in essence letting our state rot. And the republicans see it deep in enemy teratorry will avoid the state and let our state rot. I am hoping the NY votes for McCain not because I want him as president but I wan't Politions to take notice of our state, see that our state has problems that needs to be addresssed too.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[nw15062]

Using the past as a example is not a solid argument in this case. But then against he Declaration of independence should have been written into the constitution to enforce that we are all born equal. Something that is not in there to this day...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like that, amend the constitution or move.

STFU. Since *I* don't like it, I'll keep right on making noise about it until it is changed. I cannot amend the constitution alone and I damn sure am not going to move because some asshole has the kneejerk reaction of a child.

"Or move." What a crock of shit that tired line is.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[volxdragon]

Oh great, Disney will have it's own party on the ballots then....you ever see how many votes Mickey Mouse gets?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[dzfoo]

Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states? If so, this would have affected their economic viability in a substantial way; and coerced them, eventually, to only be allowed trade amongst themselves. Thus, their potential for economic growth would have been limited. This seems particularly unsustainable to me, and eventually could have prompted the slave-enabling states to change their ways. This is not unlike imposing economic sanctions on hostile foreign countries--except that they would be bretheren, and geographically bound, thus offering a higher incentive.

I don't personally subscribe to the idea that "them states had slaves, they were e-veel, so they must be stopped immediately!!!!0ne" justification for the Civil War. Many things happen in the lead to it, most importantly the cessation of some states, which--for evident reasons--could not be tolerated by the Union. But some of these events were sparked by the chain reaction of the Union attempting to impose control on each (hitherto) soverign state.

As the grandfather post says, the Federal Government wanted to excert control over the individual states, it went to war to this end, and it won. And we have to live now with the historical consequenes of this event--for better or for worse. Our nation change significantly hence, in spirit and vision--again, for better or for worse.

          -dZ.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[electrictroy]

Actually the Civil War is not the main cause of today's over-reaching Congress. The "Commerce clause" and the U.S. Supreme Court is the main problem. The U.S.S.C. has interpreted the commerce clause in such a way that Congress can now regulate almost anything it wants. That happened during the Depression (1930-40s), and the decision allows Congress to tell you how much wheat you can or cannot grow in your own backyard. Clearly this was not what the Framers intended when they gave the U.S. the power to regulate interstate commerce. What I grow in my backyard is INTRAstate commerce and should not involve Congress at all. It should be the Pennsylvania government that regulates that.

It would be roughly equivalent to the European Parliament telling British citizens how much food they can grow for their own personal consumption. Clearly that's not part of the EU's mandate, and it's not part of the U.S.' constitution either.

Stupid, stupid supreme court justices.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[electrictroy]

In most cases, like my own "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania", it's just a name. But originally the name meant exactly what it said: Everybody shared the same wealth, which in colonial society meant "common sharing of food". That style was quickly abandoned because it was discovered that some lazy people refused to work in the field, and yet they still got the reward (free food) off the backs of their industrious neighbors.

Now my state operates on the idea of individual wealth - you work, you keep what you earn. Wealth is kept separately for each person or family, except in a few cases like the Dole for the homeless.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

But also with range voting you can get a less popular candidate winning. If he has not many but loyal followers who give him a 9 and 0 to everyone else, and the other candidate has many more followers, but they will give him 7s and 8s, and 2s and 3s to the other, then in the end the candidate the majority disappoves still manages to win. The disparity can get worse if there are more than two candidates running.

Lets assume 30 voters for three candidates.

A gets 9 from his 10 supporters, who give 0 to all other candidates.
B gets 7 from his 10 supporters, but they give 2 to all other candidates.
C gets 7 from his 10 supporters, who give 4 to B and only 1 to A.

So A is heavily unpopular with everyone exept his own supports, and he gets 120 votes. B is popular with his own supporters, but also the fans of C will agree with him. He gehts 110 votes. C is definitely unpopular, but the supportes of B would rather have him than A.

But still A wins.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Guppy06]

"Indeed: the real problem is that the states are letting the people choose the electors, when it ought to be the state legislature doing it!"

Have you looked at your state legislature lately? Do you know who your state legislators are? Do you even know what your state legislature as called, as well as the names of its houses?

I'm in favor of what you propose, as well as what another respondent said about repealing the Seventeenth, but that would require that voters not only trust their state legislatures (which they don't, not that they've been given much reason to), but that they know their legislatures.

Reform the legislatures into more trustworthy bodies (say, by eliminating gerrymandering, or by implementing ranked voting, or both), then you can start looking at how they apply to the federal government.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[centuren]

Can't anyone who meets the qualifications (35 years old, natural born US citizen) be a write-in?

If both of the big parties missed the deadlines, I really, really hope that they are denied their names on the ballot. Not because I don't want either to win, but because the rules are already stacked against 3rd party candidates enough that it's hardly appropriate for the 2 parties to be exempt from the same rules.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[lloydchristmas759]

At the voting stations, have two lines

One for McCain and one for Obama ?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[samkass]

Do you think this best serves the interest of the people of Texas, almost all of whom want to vote for Obama or McCain?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zotz]

'taxation without representation' - that's been thrown out a long time ago.

There are loads of people in the US who have not right to vote but who still must pay taxes. Including US income taxes.

You could require that anyone you tax has a right to vote at the various levels. City, county, state, federal. But somehow I doubt that will fly. I have been suggesting it for years and everyone thinks it is a crazy idea. I also propose it for my country and the reaction is pretty much the same. Which is a surprising (well not really) thing for people who supposedly believe in democracy. And especially for the US where (according to myth at least) the principle was one of the main reasons they fought their war of independence (well, I kind of picked up that idea from just living exposed to their culture.)

all the best,

drew

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Chris Mattern]

That would be unconstitutional. You use the term "federal government" without remembering what "federal" means, although I grant you the concept of the US as a federation of largely independent states has been mostly lost.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[z80kid]

> It allowed slavery. Yes it did.

That's ridiculous.

Both systems allowed for slavery. It doesn't take a change in the type of government to prohibit slavery. It just takes the willingness of those in power to prohibit it.

Slavery ended with the passing of the 13th amendment after the war. Until then, it was still legal in the North wherever individual states or territories didn't prohibit it. Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.

It's amazing how our government has managed to whitewash history to make it look like hundreds of thousands of chivalrous northern soldiers fought and died to free the black man. Yet if you look at the way blacks were treated in the north before and after the war, you'd quickly realize that these northerners were hardly willing to die for the rights of blacks. But the whole "free the slaves" cover is great for whipping up patriotism while covering the real reason for the war - a federal power grab by wealthy interests.

Face it. If the northerners really believed in equality and rights strongly enough to fight for them, we wouldn't have had another century of segregation in both the north and the south followed by race riots all over the north in the 60's.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[databyss]

There's only two top political parties, and they intend to keep it that way.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ShakaUVM]

All voting systems can be gamed, except a two-party (or 1-party or 0-party I suppose) election where you have to pick one person. Range Voting, Approval Voting, Condorcet Voting, they all have mathematical "exploits" to them which can result in the wrong person being elected.

The only problem with a two-party election, of course, is that there are sometimes multiple people we might want to vote for.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fbjon]

Single Transferrable Vote is what you want. Although it'll take some explaining to some of the populace. So offer alternatives.

It's a good system, but I wonder what ways it could be subverted using suitable election campaigning/advertising.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

If neither candidate can run on the ballot OR as a write in, that would almost certainly precipitate a nationwide constitutional crisis.

To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College. Texas has the 34 electoral votes, meaning that if the electors from Texas were barred from voting for either candidate, Obama would almost certainly win a plurality.

Except -- the electors aren'tspecifically bound by the constitution to vote for anybody. Theoretically an elector, while elected standing for candidate A, can change his mind and vote for B. About half the states have laws which punish "faithless electors", although the constitutionality of these laws have never been tested. It's doubtful that they are constitutional.

If Obama wins 270 electoral votes, it won't matter. But if he wins 235 electoral votes it won't matter (because McCain will have 370), although that is unlikely in the extreme.

If we have anything in between, we have a constitutional crisis. What would be clear is that had the will of Texans been honored according to how the system was supposed to work, then McCain should have won. If some TX electors acting on this theory votes for him, then he will win, but the legitimacy of this win will be questioned by around half of Americans who voted for Obama -- possibly more than half if Obama wins the popular vote. If not enough TX electors vote for McCain to put him over the top, the people who voted for McCain will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections. If each candidate gets exactly 252 votes (I haven't checked whether this is possible mathematically), then the election goes to the House, which will give the Presidency to Obama.

In any case, in any of these crisis scenarios, the reasonable outcome would be for McCain to get the presidency, because that reflects the will of the peoples as it would have resulted had the proper procedures been followed. But no matter who wins the presidency, the presidency would be deeply weakened -- a happy result for the Libertarians, but potentially disastrous for the country as we navigate some pretty rough waters ahead with a president distracted by legitimacy questions.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

Stupid, stupid supreme court justices.

Eh, FDR basically held a gun to their heads back in the day.

FDR is one of my heroes but I think that's one of the darkest moments of his presidency.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fartrader]

I'm British, live in the US, can't vote and pay taxes. Oh the irony.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

20 years from now, you might hear the French and Germans complain "these American immigrants are stealing our jobs!"

Why not... they are already whining about the Muslim immigrants. People who think the United States isn't welcoming should take a look at how some of the EU nations treat immigrants.....

Re:I hope they're removed,

[online-shopper]

KY is made by Johnson and Johnson, an American company, and sold in the US. The odds of you coming from somewhere I haven't heard of is pretty slim, quit being a pompous douche.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

You know that most different metrics of re-counting FL have Bush winning, right?

(And I'm the Democrat saying this....)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[nahdude812]

Not at a state level, only on an individual level (this was one of the original mandates of the federal government, specifically to prevent trade embargoes between states). You'd easily end up with individuals willing to trade in slave-produced goods from the south, and with less competition in the market (and higher demand for those products as a result of other people being unwilling to trade in it), such individuals would profit substantially.

Even if no such individuals already existed in those states (presuming all citizens of the northern states were of like mind), southerners would have readily traveled north and taken on the role.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[indifferent children]

Well, making the office of the President have "little to do with [our] daily lives" would probably mean chopping the hell out of our military. Right now, our annual DoD budget, not including the special appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, works out to over $1,800 per person (including children). I don't see how a family of four can fail to see who the President is, when they are spending $7,300 on the military, plus however many trillions it costs for that President's foreign misadventures.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

Nowhere does the US constitution establish and intelligence requirement for voting.

You try argue that with people, who claim, Republicans "steal" elections by printing confusing ballots.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... KY is civilized?

-A Kentuckian(unfortunately)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fmobus]

I beg to differ. Brazil is a "Federal Republic" only in its name. In practice, most of the power and tax revenues is kept by central government, which sucks when the state you live in doesn't get to see its tax money back as investments.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

I think as long as the rules stay the same during the whole process, and the general rules are the same for every candidate, every voting system works, especially if only 25 percent of all voters actually care.

If you have more than two candidates, the geometry is more than 1-dimensional, and you can't sort anything more than 1-dimensional while at the same time keeping important arithmetic properties. That's also valid for elections.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[alecwood]

Lots of products made by American companies are sold under different brand names in different markets. I'm surprised they didn't change it for the US market As for my being a pompous douche - everyone has a hobby, that's mine, leave me to it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Thing 1]

MA is also a commonwealth. (That word sounds like socialism...)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[alecwood]

Why thank you kind person, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me on slashdot for ages

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Roxton]

Range voting sucks. I don't want my 6 vote to count less than that guy's 9 vote. Condorcet is way better, but I'd settle for runoff to simplify matters.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

I don't think the B supporters would do that. Every voter will maximize the influence of his own vote. I say the following is the smart way for each of the supporters to vote:

A gets 9 from his 10 supporters, who give 0 to all other candidates.

B gets 9 from his 10 supporters, but they give 0 to all other candidates.

C gets 9 from his 10 supporters, who give 5 to B and only 0 to A.

A gets 90

B gets 140

C gets 90

B has the support of C-voters and is the only candidate to cross party lines, so he wins.

Each voter has the power to maximize the influence of his own vote. It is an equal power.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

And that write-in isn't worth a warm bucket of piss if the candidate missed the deadline to file his slate of electors with the state.

Remember you aren't voting for McCain or Obama -- you are voting for electors.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[toph42]

No, the people lost the war. The government won it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lord Kano]

Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have.

In this country, the Federal government's powers are limited. We have this little document called the Constitution that delinieates the powers of the federal government. As annoying as that is to some people, it's how things work here.

LK

Re:I hope they're removed,

[db32]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Civilization?! My friend...I lived in Virgina... That Commonwealth crap is a load of garbage.
Damned near everything...and I mean everything is taxed...I'm surprised that they don't tax you for the air you breathe.
Go to McDonalds...you will pay a sales tax...but look at your reciept...you will also be paying a "prepared meal" tax. Now...I would even grudgingly accept this at a real fine dining kind of place...but McDonalds?! It is barely prepared and it is barely a meal!
Vehicles...oh...yes...the vehicles... First you have the state inspection stickers that you must get every year under penelty of large and repetitive fines. Now...it has been so arranged that dealerships and mechanic shops are the inspection stations because the state can't be bothered with it. So...you pay a mechanic to have him tell you that you need XYZ fixed on your car before he will give you a sticker that will keep you from getting pulled over. Talk the fox watching the hen house. What a load of crap. Then on top of that...every God damned little city, township, or whatever wants you to pay a damned fortune for your city sticker as well...gotta have a city sticker. Oh and then there is the state taxes on your vehicle...man they just gotta ram you on the car thing in every concievable way.
Also somewhat related to vehicles...and more to taxes... I have no God damned idea what they waste all those collected tax dollars on, but it sure as shit isn't the roads! Fuckers are falling apart everywhere you go.

No my friend...Commonwealths are not even remotely civilization.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

Gaming = strategic voting?

I say a voter should maximize his vote. This leads to a situation where people who don't like a popular candidate will vote for the most popular person who is not that candidate. This happens in our current elections. It is uncertain at the beginning which candidate we should fear will win and who stands the best chance at dethroning him. Polls are extremely influential in this first formation of consensus. The exploit is at this step, when people are trying to figure out what their neighbors are thinking.

I think we don't need to have this mob-mentality guessing game. We could all vote more sincerely by allowing more of a preference to be recorded.

So I think you should suggest a way that the system can be gamed.

Perhaps you are thinking of Arrows impossibility theorem which applies only to ranked voting systems. Range voting is not one of those. It allows ties and weightings. Arrows theorem does not apply.

Perhaps you could have each party use range voting during the primaries, and I am not sure how this would affect things.

We do need more than two parties, because otherwise voters only need to decide which one or two issues is most important, and debates will center on these few big things while leaving out smaller things. For instance, many people just vote on the issue of "Life v Choice" (TM).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lord Kano]

Since *I* don't like it, I'll keep right on making noise about it until it is changed.

Making noise won't get a single thing changed. Unorganized bitching won't get a thing done. You want to fix things? Call your Senator, call your Representative, call your State Senator and Representative. Encourage other people to do the same.

Unless you actually DO SOMETHING, you'll be just like those old welfare bums that I remember from when I was a kid who used to sit around drinking cheap beer crying about how the "system" was a "sham".

LK

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

Ensuring fair, reasonable, and standardized elections isn't a good reason?

They are already fair and reasonable. What's the good reason to also have them standardized? What happened to "celebrate diversity"? Oh, don't answer here — just start your Constitutional Amendment campaign...

And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies. I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)

Actually, quite the opposite — there was no catastrophe of any kind. The Constitution prevailed — thanks to a wise decision of the Supreme Court, who reasserted each State's right to vote for President in any way they please (barring certain explicitly banned practices). The whole turmoil was in the press — law and order was not even challenged on the ground, there is more "turmoil" during a WTO meeting.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[henrym]

Yep, I know...I'm just going with the parent posters supposition that no one died, and not addressing the legitimacy of the election itself.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fastest fascist]

Too bad EU countries are plunging headlong into the same authoritarian surveillance state that's rising in the US.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

I don't know much about the political systems of the other countries on your list, but I will be the first to sign up in the militia against anybody, who would try to impose Russia's political system here.

Russians themselves joke, that God created their country, to show other peoples, what not to do.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[differentialman]

Bipartisan cooperation? Texas is guaranteed to go to McCain -- I don't see how it's in the Democrats' interest to do anything about this.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[catfood]

What makes you think Texas won't get its electors?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zacronos]

That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves.

Wrong. Take a look at the Emancipation Proclamation sometime, and you'll see that it was much more of an economic attack than a declaration of the right of men and women to be free of slavery. From Wikipedia:

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

If the Union had been so interested in declaring all men and women to be free, why did it only apply to states that didn't toe the line? I'm fairly sure it wasn't until after the American Civil War that slavery was completely abolished by federal/Constitutional law, which means (from a federal standpoint, at least) Union states were still allowed to have slavery throughout the war. It's completely revisionist to claim the war was "about" freeing slaves (though I admit that's what you'll typically be taught in school as a child here in the US).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dog-Cow]

I won't speak to others, but my State's government plays almost no direct role in my life. The sales tax is probably the largest notable impact, followed by licensing and vehicle registration. The federal government, however, has way too much influence over my daily life, even if it's just because of the visiblity.

It's really a matter of perception, but it appears as if my State's government has no power over me as the Federal government has stolen it all. That's why I don't really know or care about local politics at all.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Thelasko]

Yeah, the commerce clause has done some terrible things, but it's done some good too. We wouldn't have our interstate highway system without it.

The real offender is the 16th amendment. It basically let's the federal government say to the states, "Do what we say, or we won't give you your money back."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dog-Cow]

This is based on what I hear versus what I know from experience, so please don't flame me for being an ignorant American. I already know I am :)

What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by. It's one thing to maintain one's own culture (I am an Orthodox Jew), but it's quite another to try and force your new neighbors to cater to your prejudices.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[toph42]

How is that different from the USA? (And I don't mean how is that different from how it is supposed to be, I mean how thing really happen.)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[swillden]

Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states?

No. Regulation of interstate commerce is a federal, not a state prerogative. Under the Constitution, states are not allowed to impose embargoes, tariffs, or other trade restrictions on their neighbors. Individuals in the north could have chosen not to trade with the south, but that wouldn't work.

However, slavery wasn't really the reason the southern states seceded, any more than taxes were the reason for the Revolution. In both cases, the reasons were complex and deep, and had as much to do with people feeling like they didn't really belong as any specific concerns. As another poster pointed out, several northern states allowed slavery throughout the Civil War, and that wasn't changed until well after the war was over.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bhtooefr]

Well, that's pretty much what approval voting is...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dave Tucker Online]

Voting for Obama or McCain does not best serve the interest of the people of Texas either.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Alsee]

range voting... In short, you rate each candidate 0 to 9.

Range voting rapidly degenerates to approval voting - the obvious tactic is to vote either 0 or 9 for each candidate. It is seriously pointless to vote 1 or 5 or anothing else for a candidate.

-

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dog-Cow]

Are you talking about the US? The Federal government's power has no limits in the US.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[characterZer0]

Really? People can't be bothered to figure out which single candidate they like best so they just vote party line, and you want them to rank all the candidates?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Alsee]

Single Transferrable Vote is what you want.

No, if we're going to re-write the election system then we we should go with the mathematically best one, and that is Condorcet. There are cases where Single Transferrable Vote clearly elects the "wrong" candidate in comparison to Condorcet.

In the voting booth the election process for Condorcet is exactly the same as Single Transferrable Vote. As you said, "place a 1 next to your first choice candidate, a 2 in your second choice candidate, and so on".

I strongly recommend the website accuratedemocracy.com. They give a full explanation and analysis of Single Transferrable Vote and Condorcet voting and many other issues and systems for building the best possible Democracy and escaping various problems of politics. Awesome site.

-

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Thelasko]

Have you looked at your state legislature lately?

I have tried and it's very difficult. The media pays no attention to the state legislature. It's like they don't even exist. Therefore, everyone turns to the federal government to solve their problems.

Not enough cops on your street? Washington needs to pass that crime bill!
The schools suck in my area. We need No Child Left Behind!

These are local problems. The need to be solved by state and local government!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[nizo]

And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[PeterM from Berkeley]

If the election goes to the House, the House may well give the presidency to McCain. Voting in the House is by state, with each state's delegation getting 1 vote. Small states love McCain.

However, if Obama fails to get the 270 and Texas votes for Barr because of this screw-up, the Presidency should go to McCain anyway--because Texas would certainly have given McCain the victory if McCain had been on Texas' ballot.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[LanMan04]

Ah, good ol' ius primæ noctis.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dog-Cow]

Yes. Anyone who votes the party line is like a small (minded) child who must sometimes have bad things happen to him to show that life must be dealt with as-is and not how one wants it to be.

If both Mccain and Obama missed the deadline, it should show that both are arrogant shits that do not care about proper Law and procedure. No one who smugly assumes he will win should in any way be allowed a chance.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[lionchild]

Some states may not tie their eletorial votes to their popular eletcion. This is a state-by-state case. Usually the electorial college casts their votes the same way the popular election goes, but they're not always required to by law.

What strikes me about this, is the potential precident that it could set for other elections. Imagine if this precident could be applied to state offices, like Senate or House of Representatives. Or, how about for Mayor or Board of Alderman? (And where applicable..local School Board?)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zarmanto]

If his case is valid, you'll see some true bi-partisan cooperation in Austin as they speedily pass a repeal of the relevant section of the state code.

Not likely: Texas is a pretty strong Republican stronghold. More likely you'll see the Democrats standing fast behind the Libertarians, in the hopes that the Republican write-ins will somehow still lose to the prominently displayed Libertarian candidate -- thus handing the entire election over to the Democrats quite handily.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves.

While the issue of slavery was a big issue, and was resolved because of the war, the war did not happen because of slavery. The US civil war was inevitable by the end of the revolution.

Okay, it's true that the "trigger issue" that set the thing off was the secession of South Carolina, and the main excuse for said secession was the slavery issue. But this only *caused* the war in the same sense that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand caused the Great War. It's what set the thing going, yes, but if it had not done so, something else would have come along and set it going at some point, probably sooner rather than later.

The real major driving issue behind the civil war was the strong correlation between geography, economy, and politics. You could get out a map and pretty much draw a line between the conservative, rural areas with a simple, primary (and to a large extent agrarian) economy, and on the other side of the line the liberal areas, with higher population density and a more complex (and more modern) economy. The south wanted protectionism. The north wanted a more laissez faire, free-market approach to economic issues. The south was mostly anti-federalist, believing strongly in reserving as many powers as possible to the states and the people, limiting the power of the federal government to the absolute minimum. The north mostly was largely federalist. The southern economy relied heavily on slavery; the northern states didn't even allow it. And so on and so forth.

A lot of people think Lincoln wanted to end slavery, and that's why the south seceded. In fact, he had no such intention. He opposed the unchecked *spread* of slavery to more and more states and territories, but he had no plans to suddenly put an immediate end to it in the south. That's the way things played out, but it wasn't what he had in mind before the war. South Carolina opposed Lincoln and seceded when he was elected for complex reasons, and his position on slavery was just one of several things they hated about the man. It was an excuse, and a rallying cry for other states, but the states-rights issue (i.e., antifederalism) was *also* an excuse and a rallying cry.

South Carolina seceded to prove that the state could do that, that the union with the rest of the country was strictly voluntary on the part of the state, and that the majority of the other states could *not* get together and decide things for them at a federal level. Slavery was *one* of the things they didn't want the federal government deciding for them. Tariffs were another. But the main thing is that the state government of South Carolina felt too much of their authority was being usurped. To them, Washington was the next London. The North didn't agree, because as far as they were concerned the south had full representation. South Carolina had as many US Senators as any other state, and Representatives proportional to their population, and so on and so forth, the same as any other state in the union.

As I said, slavery was a major issue, both in contributing to the war and in being resolved by the war. (The protectionism issue, in contrast, was not resolved until much later, if indeed it has been fully resolved, and there's some question about that.) But it was not, by itself, the cause of the war, nor was it the main thing the war was ultimately about.

And actually, the slavery issue might not have been as completely resolved by the war if Lincoln had not been assassinated. His plan for reconstruction did not include immediate abolition. He wanted to bar the major Confederate ringleaders from holding future political office and then let the southern states back into the union almost immediately, with the understanding that the issue of secession had been decided and it was not permitted. But Johnson wasn't able to make it work that way.

Incidentally, the GOP was the liberal party at the time, and the Dems were the conservatives. The history of how that got turned around is interesting in its own right.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[fmobus]

Well, I believe it is a matter of "scale". As usual, each tax is meant to be paid to city, state or federal govt. Currently, federal taxes make up for a large part of one's tax burden (not the majority, but still a larger-than-it-should part). This money is supposed to be invested for infrastructure that would help the country as a whole, but most of it goes to specific states (the ones with political power).

A sad instance of this problem is the public healthcare problem the city I live in is currently facing. Hospitals are built and managed by the municipality, but each appointment or procedure is paid by SUS (the Federal public healthcare system). SUS pays them regularly, but pays amounts that do not cover the costs (not even a fraction of it) the hospital had for said procedures. In the end, the city gets the to foot the bill, notwithstanding the fact that most healthcare-related taxes are paid do federal govt. As a result, the city is not able to keep a decent service. To top it off, none of the current candidates for mayor (we got elections in 2 weeks) has a real solution for this problem, mostly because they will never have enough power to revert the distortion of our tax system.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[suggsjc]

A simpler way to do range voting would be a range of 0 to 1.

Yeah, and just go ahead and spell out the candidates names in binary encoded ASCII while you are at it...people would never understand such a complicated system.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[toph42]

"there's no such deadline. As a Texan, I can write in anyone I like..."

You can, but it only counts if the person you wrote in filed by August 26th.

From http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/runpres07.shtml:

Write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy with the Secretary of State. The declaration may not be filed earlier than July 27, 2008, or later than 5:00 p.m. of August 26, 2008. The declaration must also be accompanied with information about the vice-presidential running mate and the names and addresses of the presidential electors. Written-signed statements of each individualâ(TM)s consent to be a vice-presidential candidate or elector must accompany the application.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Dachannien]

I'd be willing to come over and act as Lord, once we can get details like droit de seigneur sorted out.

I prefer living in my good old anarchosyndicalist commune.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[vwjeff]

Until the Great Depression, government tended to stay out of the lives of individuals. Government was only visible at the local level.

If you want to blame someone for the sustained power grab of the federal government blame FDR.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tmosley]

So, having a democracy that allowed slavery means that democracy is evil?

Fascism, F*CK YEAH!

But seriously, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some backwards states wanted to keep slavery doesn't mean that we should all just kowtow to an all powerful central government.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, "Russian Federation" was a true federation, and not just one on the paper, in 90s, during Yetsin's era. The degree of autonomy of constituting entities varied (by design), but there were quite a few republics, and those had a lot of leeway - their own presidents and parliaments, official languages (including in education), local laws (not quite to the degree allowed in the US, but still) etc.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[geoffspear]

Considering it took 100 years to make such discrimination illegal, I hardly think you can credit the North winning the civil war with the federal government stepping in to try to stop discrimination.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

What makes you think Texas won't get its electors?

It will receive its electors. It just won't be able to select those electors in a way that reflects will of the people.

There will be no mechanism by which electors pledged to either candidate can be chosen by the people of TX. Either the electors will be pledged to a third party candidate, or they will be unpledged. If they are unpledged, you have a situation where the people are cut completely out of the process.

I'm a reasonable person. If the unpledged electors voted for McCain, that represents the probable will of the voters, and its probably the best result here should Barr carry the day. But it's not a good thing for small-r republican government. Elections aren't supposed to be about probabilities.

I'm for overruling the rules in this case. What matters here, I think, is not fairness to the candidates. Screw them. It's fairness to the voters.

Empowering the voters in a fair way is what the rules are there for. The Constitution doesn't say how the states are supposed to select electors, but it does require the states to guarantee small-r republican government. You can do that by having the legislature appointing electors, which is bad but not the worst possible thing. You can't do that by holding an election that rules out the choices of the vast majority of voters.

That would be republican in form only, not substance. It is the substance that matters, not the machinery of the election.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

There are many groups taxed in US without representation - e.g. ex-convicts.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Skjellifetti]

I would argue that it is completely revisionist to claim that the war was not about freeing the slaves. I suspect that this revisionism has its roots in modern Southern politicians and historians who are embarrassed by The Peculiar Institution and want to claim some other more noble sounding reason for starting the War of the Southern Rebellion. One has only to look at the reaction in the North to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry to see that a major confrontation was brewing over the issue although Lincoln, ever the politician, later tried to spin the cause of the war as "we were just trying to restrict it's growth." The usual reason given for why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states that allowed slavery was that Lincoln could not afford to alienate them too much since they might also choose to secede.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1865

Re:I hope they're removed,

[plague3106]

You realize of course that we can go back to states rights, because we have an amendment outlawing slavery, right? The only reason southern states were allowed to have slaves at all was because it was originally part of the constitution, but it's not anymore.

But please, you, who doesn't appear to be a US citizen, I'm sure you can explain how being one of 300,000,000 protects my freedom more than being only one of 624,000, which is the populate of my state. Where do you think my vote matters more?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Zordak]

Let's give blame where blame's due. FDR threatened to stack the court if they voted against him, and Congress lined up behind His Royal Highness King Franklin I and said they were good with that. This was all to pass the unconstitutional New Deal programs, which did little to actually fix the depression and transformed us into a socialist state. The alternative, of course, was to let people suffer the consequences of their own poor choices instead of looking to Washington to bail them out when their greed took them down. We have seen the epic failure of American socialism in the last 60 -- 70 years. Two-thirds of our federal budget is still going to pay for these cumbersome, ill-managed programs, but they are headed to bankruptcy, and are likely to take us down with them.

Unfortunately, the last week has demonstrated that we have learned absolutely nothing. Thanks to our Republican Chief, we are all paying to socializing losses to bail out the greedy, and we are all set to welcome, with open arms, the Democrats' Second Coming of the Socialist Messiah in January.

We will have nobody but ourselves to blame, comrades.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[BgJonson79]

Eh, it would only take a Constitutional Amendment. Let's get started!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states?

Wouldn't have accomplished anything. They could get what they needed from Europe.

It is true that the southern economy was not going to be long-term sustainable. Single-product economies never are, even if the single product is something as important as agriculture.

> I don't personally subscribe to the idea that "them states had slaves, they were e-veel,
> so they must be stopped immediately!!!!

Neither do I, as such. Slavery, as it was practiced in the US south, was wrong. But a more gradual approach to phasing it out would probably have been better for all concerned -- including the slaves, or at least their great grandchildren.

The introduction of slaves' rights might have been a good step: the right not to be executed without a trial, for starters. (Granted, the trials wouldn't have been fair, especially at first. But you have to start somewhere.) The right to own property would have been a good one, and potentially could have led to the potential for (a very small minority of) slaves to buy their freedom -- something that had theoretically existed at one point but had been lost.

I tend to think the most important thing would have been to break the chain of inheritance. Under the system of slavery used in the US south, the child of a slave was born into slavery and remained a slave for life, and passed the slavery along to his (or her) children as well. This is perhaps *the* single most wrong thing about the way slavery worked in the US. Stopping that would have led eventually to fewer slaves and perhaps ultimately to abolition, after a few generations (assuming the Atlantic trade in new slaves from overseas was also ended, but I think it already had been, at least mostly, by the time of the war).

In some ways I kind of like the ancient Hebrew system, wherein you can fall into slavery through economic hardship, but you remain a slave for a maximum of six years and must be released in the seventh year. (It was actually more complicated, but that's the executive summary.) Indentured servitude in the new world was originally *ostensibly* supposed to work (approximately) that way, but in practice it never really did, at least not if your skin was dark. By the time of the US Civil War that was a mere footnote in the history books.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[gebbeth]

States were supposed to govern their own borders and the Constitution was there to limit a few things that states could not govern (like trade between states, or basic rights).

That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves. Now if you'd like to make some big spiel about how the Union winning the civil war lead to negative repercussions for your state's rights, then I'm simply going to point out that the previous system was far, far worse. It allowed slavery. Yes it did. So arguing for states rights to be reinstated in order to protect people's rights is not really a solid argument.

You my friend are the victim of revisionist history. Don't feel put out though, most of us are. The civil war was not about slavery. It was about the economy. The south produced the feedstock for the northern textile industry and the Europeans were cutting the south a better deal. As such the south was exporting to Europe vice the north. The north just couldn't have that. The secession of the south was totally legitimate. Now I am not saying that slavery is good and that the war didn't end it, but the war was not fought over slavery. I know that what I am saying sounds like heresy, but have an open mind and do a little research, you might be surprised.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[coolsnowmen]

They've also missed the deadline for running as write-ins. They should rightfully face the same penalties Barr would have to if he made the same mistakes.

You've been modded insightful but I demand proof. What you say makes no sense.

The deadline is for being put on the ballot. The write-in line is blank. I can legally write any name in there if they fulfill the various requirements of being over 35 and an American citizen.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

Nothing has changed about the electoral college other than after two hundred years we're a bit less scared of "mob rule" by people who aren't responsible or intelligent enough to own property.

One legitimate purpose the EC has is to equalize (somewhat) power between populous states an non-populous states. A presidential candidate could safely ignore a state like North Dakota for example, meaning ND voters would have essentially no chance to sway the election.

If I were to reform the system and keep this requirement, I'd have every voter vote for the presidential ticket of is choice. The candidate would receive one EV for every whole 1/435th of the popular vote he receives, plus two EV for every state he wins. This preserves the equalization of powers.

Of course, what we really need to be concerned about aren't states, but media markets. That's a new wrinkle. Concerns of people in southern Ohio or eastern California are swamped by much larger populations on the other end of the state. It's really states that are anachronisms here.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[T.E.D.]

It appears to me the creators of the original constitution felt it was important for the citizens of each state to decide how to cast their electoral votes.

Well, no. They actually felt it was important for the citizens to not directly decide such things. The original idea was for the state governments to appoint electors (either though the governor or the legistature). Presumably these people would be wiser than the actual populace. Its true that the state legislatures and governors were in turn voted on, but most states didn't have universal sufferage either. You generally had to be a land-owner to vote. Of course women and slaves couldn't vote either (even though they counted for congressional representation).

It was also the original idea that these electors would all vote for their own regional candidates, and thus the electoral college would almost never be able to come up with a majority. Thus every election would be thrown into the (outgoing) House of Representatives. US representatives were supposed to have been directly voted on (unlike senators), but in the 18th century you had to be fairly rich and idle to be able to afford to spend several weeks a year blovating in DC. This would insure that slave states had vastly disproportinate influence on who got elected president. Either way, it was intended to be a decison made by "our betters".

The getting thrown to the House thing didn't work out as intended, but the slave states still made out OK. Of the first 7 presidents, 5 were from Virginia.

If you hadn't gathered yet, our Founding Fathers were actually rather elitist.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[StormyWeather]

if the Dems are represented enough in the Texas legislature, I'd think that they'd try to block passage of the bill using any means at their disposal.

They aren't.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Braxton_the_Covenant]

That's an excellent summary but I wanted to correct you on one point. Prior to the Civil War, the South wanted laissez-faire and free markets and international trade, while it was the North that was dominated by its big city banking elite that wanted protectionism. The north wanted to sell its manufactured goods to the south while preventing the superior and cheaper European goods from being sold in American markets. The South saw this as an outright money-grab by the northern states (and I believe it was) and was one of the main, if not the main, motivations for southern independence---to create free-markets. Invariably exporting economies favor international trade, while importing ones favor tariff barriers, mercantilism, and statism.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[dzfoo]

>> What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by. It's one thing to maintain one's own culture (I am an Orthodox Jew), but it's quite another to try and force your new neighbors to cater to your prejudices.

Yeah, kinda like those pesky foreigners, you know, the pilgrims, that crossed the pond and could not reconcile their differences with the local cultures they encountered.

Oh wait...
      -dZ.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[StormyWeather]

Because if a majority is what the candidates are shooting for only large cities will get any interest. The smaller states, towns, and rural communities can go to hell, and become a refuse and pollution dump for the cities. The system works as intended. Our republic was never meant to be a direct democracy, we just have democratically elected representation.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Huh?]

It's Yankee to you! Damn Johnny Rebs.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

Good point, except that congressional delegation by state is somewhat more complex than blue state/red state. For example ND and SD have, IIRC, one at large House member each, and they're both Democrats.

IIRC, there are 26 states with majority Democrat house delegations in the current congress, so throwing the election to the house throws it to Obama, unless some majority blue red state delegations decide to vote with their state. However, there are some blue states with red delegations too.

In any case, a helluva mess. The discordian in me is fascinated by the prospect. However the practical person in me says this is a really, really bad time for a mess like this.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[geekoid]

You really don't get that we are a union of separate states, do you?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Schadrach]

Personally, I wish there was. A simple voter's registration test that requires a very basic knowledge of how the state and federal government function. By "very basic" I mean stuff that gets covered in less than a week in an 8th grade civics class -- branches of government, bicameral legislature, how elections are actually conducted (such as electors being the real deciders rather than the populous and such).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[turd_sandwich]

They tuk ehr jobs!!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[BigGar']

I'm pretty sure they do, but one only has to have a D to "Pass". Plus how many drop out and don't graduate.

When I was in high school, my Gov. teacher made us rewrite the constitution paraphrasing it. The whole thing. She read each one of 'em. At the time I thought, man this sucks. 23 years later though, I've still A much better than average grasp of how the government works and is supposed to work. I also take the time to make myself aware of what's going on governmentally speaking, because, dammit, this sh!t is important.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[geekoid]

Wow, you really, really, do not understand the context at all do you?
I mean, just wow.
Maybe you should read the news papers from the North and the South, look at what was being said, look at who said what.
Of course the states were specifically mentioned. You don't when a way, create an agreement and then call out the winning side.
The North didn't have slaves and was against their use.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Risen888]

I'd say the consequences of said have been fairly catastrophic.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Grismar]

C is definitely unpopular, but the supportes of B would rather have him than A.

If B-voters would rather have C than A, they shouldn't have acted like twats and gave both of them 2. Instead they should just give C 3 and A 1.

How 7+4+1 adds up to 7+2 or 9+0, I don't really understand, so perhaps I'm clueless as to what you're talking about here.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ZOmegaZ]

If neither candidate can run on the ballot OR as a write in, that would almost certainly precipitate a nationwide constitutional crisis.

To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College. Texas has the 34 electoral votes, meaning that if the electors from Texas were barred from voting for either candidate, Obama would almost certainly win a plurality.

Except -- the electors aren'tspecifically bound by the constitution to vote for anybody. Theoretically an elector, while elected standing for candidate A, can change his mind and vote for B. About half the states have laws which punish "faithless electors", although the constitutionality of these laws have never been tested. It's doubtful that they are constitutional.

If Obama wins 270 electoral votes, it won't matter. But if he wins 235 electoral votes it won't matter (because McCain will have 370), although that is unlikely in the extreme.

If we have anything in between, we have a constitutional crisis. What would be clear is that had the will of Texans been honored according to how the system was supposed to work, then McCain should have won. If some TX electors acting on this theory votes for him, then he will win, but the legitimacy of this win will be questioned by around half of Americans who voted for Obama -- possibly more than half if Obama wins the popular vote. If not enough TX electors vote for McCain to put him over the top, the people who voted for McCain will not recognize the legitimacy of the elections. If each candidate gets exactly 252 votes (I haven't checked whether this is possible mathematically), then the election goes to the House, which will give the Presidency to Obama.

I'm afraid you misunderstand the system. The House doesn't just decide in a dead tie, it decides if nobody gets a majority of the total electoral votes cast. With 538 electors, that always means 270. It's not a question of who gets the most votes, it's a question of who gets >50% of the total. If both McCain and Obama get less than 270, the election goes to the House, no matter who has more. Since McCain is guaranteed to win Texas if he's on the ballot, there are three possible outcomes if he's not. 1) Obama gets 270, so McCain not being on the ballot in Texas doesn't matter. 2) McCain gets 270, even without Texas. 3) Obama doesn't get 270, nor does McCain because of Texas. Election goes to the House. So the real question is, who would win if the House voted state by state, along party lines? Anyone care to count it up?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sloppy]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level.

I think that would be extremely dangerous, because it makes voting reform all the more harder.

Right now, we at least still have a slight chance of being able to slowly move to a voting system like approval or condorcet, by working through state legislatures, and they can be pressured by voters. Once you get to the federal level, Congress doesn't give a shit about you (or your vote) and has no reason to fix anything.

You have representatives in your state capitol. You do not have any representatives in Washington DC, and won't have any, until your state's election laws are repaired. Things are bad enough, don't make them worse. The last thing we need, is to move more policy-making power to DC.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[TheLink]

0 to 9?

I would think -5 to +5 would be more appropriate :).

That way even if I didn't like any of the candidates it would be worth getting my butt off to vote just for the chance of seeing the following happen:

Interviewer: "Candidate A, it looks like you won, but you have a negative net total of -1570, how can you then say you have been given mandate?".

That would be so worth it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mweather]

I'd settle for removing the party line from the ballot, and not telling people who belongs to what party.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MindlessAutomata]

Do you think the insane and biased ballot laws (put into place by both Democrats and Republicans, to keep out the "competition" much like a large corporation would--but ) serve the best interest of people in Texas, or anywhere, for that matter?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[steelfood]

Tell that to the Iraqis or for that matter, the thousands of families in the US hanging a gold star.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sloppy]

How the hell does putting one body (US Congress) in charge of it, instead of the other bodies (states), ensure elections are fair and reasonable? What kind of magic pixie dust do you think they have in DC, that makes them so much wiser and more benevolent than the people in your own state?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[dpilot]

The electoral college is still useful, if it could have a little tuning.

With completely direct election, any recount would have to be nationwide, and any local dispute becomes a national dispute. Any close election would become a nightmare, and the definition of "close" would have to become quite large.

I also disagree with the "winner takes all" imlementation of the electoral college that is currently in general usage. There has been some push toward proportional electors by-state, and that is probably a good idea. Only problem is that Democrats want to push that through in narrowly Republican states, and Republicans want to push it through in narrowly Democratic states. The other side of the issue is that this is a states rights issue. The Constitution only says that each state will send electors, and defines how the number of electors is determined. The states decide how to choose the electors, and in fact don't even need to bind the electors to the election results. (I believe the states do have to have an election, they just don't need to respect the results.) So this makes the whole issue very muddy, and unable to uniformly change without a Constitutional ammendment.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Schadrach]

They get their electors, but by Texas' own election process they can't actually get the electors sanctioned by Obama or McCain, as not only had neither filed on time to be on the ballet, neither filed a slate of electors either, so they essentially *can't* win, no matter what. Presuming, of course, that the courts don't simply claim that democrats and republicans are not subject to the rules applied to "lesser" parties because they're ***SPECIAL***.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MindlessAutomata]

I don't think you quite understand the point of the electoral college. It wasn't to make some people's votes be worth more than others; the founders had a more state-centered view of the matter, as back then being a state meant a lot more than it does now.

Rather than remove the electoral college to keep in line with modern encroachments on the constitution, why not go back to the state-centered approach instead of the large-central-government one? It would mean that the feds couldn't try to override local marijuana laws and stick sick people in jail, for one thing.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Teancum]

As far as the legality of a state seceding from "the union", I don't think even today that is a settled question as to if a state could secede in a peaceful manner or not.

Lincoln tried not to push the issue, but he did claim authority over already previously designated federal areas and the "right" of the federal government to resupply those areas in order to maintain a federal garrison or to maintain federal control over those areas. In a more modern context, this is more or less the situation at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba that was established when Cuba was a part of the USA (well, sort of... and that is complex as well). Even though the Cuban government doesn't like the "Norte Americanos" having a military base on their island, they aren't directly challenging U.S. authority over that small piece of real estate. A direct challenge would create a state of war between Cuba and America... something Castro is justifiably not willing to directly provoke.

The Civil War didn't really start until after South Carolina decided to blockade Fort Sumter and then took on the further step of assaulting the federal troops at that base after the siege. This in effect was a formal declaration of war against the USA by the South Carolina government.

It would have been interesting to see what could have happened if a more peaceful solution to the situation could have occurred, but it didn't happen, nor did the legality of the secession really get tested other than leaving the union by force of arms isn't considered a constitutional method of secession. This is also one of the most glaring omissions in the U.S. Constitution that simply doesn't even mention the possibility of secession in any form.... although the treaty between the Republic of Texas and the USA does spell out explicitly the legal mechanism that could be taken to have that state leave the union.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ShatteredArm]

Some might say the current system allows slavery. Isn't that what government social programs are? One person claims the fruits of another's labor, with the penalty of imprisonment for noncooperation.

Really, though, I've always wondered about the purely legal aspect of the Civil War. If I understand correctly, the state holds the allodial title over the land, which, according to Wikipedia, which "are the absolute property of their owner and not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior." If that's true, why can't a state secede from the Union? I know slavery was wrong, but I think there could have been a better solution that wouldn't have left problems embedded in our society.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

People who are victims of revisionist history, shouldn't accused others of it. Wars are never fought for one reason, except, maybe in American textbooks.

The economy was surely one of the reasons, but slavery was a major issue. Just take a look at some of the declarations of independence made by southern states here:

http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/the-american-civil-war-was-fought-over-slavery/

From Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

If the slavery issue is revisionist history, then why do Texas, Georgia and Mississippi make it the central issue of their declarations of independence?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

Oh, but it does. The reason the candidates ignore ND is that it's a safe state. The same reason they ignore Massachusetts, which has 12 EVs but are squabbling over NH, with only 4.

So, ironically a system designed to make small states more powerful can reduce the attention paid the interests of small and large states alike. So, overall, the system tends to disenfranchise voters in all kinds of unexpected ways.

If giving small states a bit of an edge is something with pursuing, some kind of state based bonus would do it. Right now the aggregate state bonus in the EC is about 23%, so a bonus of 0.4% or so of the popular vote for every state carried would have the intended effect of boosting small states without disenfranchising anybody.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jason.sweet]

The federal government was not meant to be a massive overriding force in our lives

If it is you are doing it wrong.

However, it is more likely that you watch too much TV news. Most laws, especially laws that affect your day to day existence, are decided at the state and local level. The news media would have you believe that Obama/McCain is the biggest decision you have to make this year. The fact of the matter is that whatever is on your local ballot will have far more impact on your "pursuit of happiness."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sloppy]

The media pays no attention to the state legislature.

"Don't hate the media, become the media." -- Jello Biafra.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> Thanks to our lousy government run education, everyone thinks Lincoln abolished
> slavery with his "Emancipation Proclamation". Read it. It allowed slavery in the north.

Actually, it allowed slavery in the south as well. The only slaves freed were those encountered by Union forces during the actual war. After Appomattox, southern slave owners who had managed to retain their slaves would have been permitted to keep them -- for the time being.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He had other priorities. He was willing to let slavery continue in the south for the time being, in exchange for other concessions. Lincoln did disagree in principle with slavery, but he was a liberal, not a radical. He believed in doing things gradually.

Abruptness is harmful. You free all the slaves at once, overnight, and you get exactly what we got: a sudden surplus of unskilled agricultural workers with no education, no property, nowhere to go, and no way to earn a living. Many of them were worse off than they had been before. Almost all of them had to go to work for former slave owners, doing the same kinds of things they'd done before, only now they were responsible for their own debts and bills, providing food and housing and whatnot for themselves and their children. The former slave owners were extremely unhappy with the situation and were not strongly inclined to pay more for the former slaves' wages than they had previously spent on their upkeep, and they were no longer required to provide benefits like free housing... It was a real mess for a long time. The descendants of the slaves *still* have lower average per-capita incomes and education levels than the rest of the population, going on a century and a half later. And we haven't even started talking about the bitterness and social upheaval and resentment...

On the other hand, if you do things more gradually... Say for instance you provide the children of slaves with the same education opportunities as other children, and free two-thirds of them at age 21. That's just *one* way to do things a bit more gradually.

Don't get me wrong: I have some philosophical objections to slavery in general, and numerous *very strong* moral and ethical objections to the way slavery was practiced in the US. It was an extremely egregiously bad system, and it absolutely had to go. I'm very glad we don't have that in this country any more. It's a system I wouldn't wish on anyone, even the gravest of enemies, and it's good that we're rid of it.

I'm just think the *details* of the way in which it was phased out were... suboptimal.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

Do you really think there's a difference between the two? The only advantage of the smaller group is that the people in your state are likely to be more like you and therefore it would be easier to protect your rights while trampling those of people who are not like you.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

Baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[p0tat03]

What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by.

I have many Muslim friends, and I simply do not believe that it's true. Sure, Muslims that I know tend to be more traditional than others, and do not ever *fully* assimilate into American culture (as opposed to Asians). But the same can be said of Indians, the *many* I know retaining a great deal of their original traditions and culture.

I personally see a great deal of acceptance of local culture. We've got halal burgers, hot dogs... we watch the same TV shows, play the same video games... The difference isn't really that large.

The Islamophobia I see rampant in the US is simply a result of fearing that which you do not understand. Muslims have beliefs, traditions, and customs that are not familiar to those who come from a strict, homogeneous Judeo-Christian nation, and this creates fear.

FYI: I am not Muslim. I am an atheist Asian.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Zenaku]

I don't think the B supporters would do that. Every voter will maximize the influence of his own vote. I say the following is the smart way for each of the supporters to vote:

So you're relying on voters to be smart now? I'm sorry, but that only works in magical pixie land, and I believe they have a monarchy.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> I'm just think the *details* of the way in which it was phased out were... suboptimal.

And, incidentally, I think there are lessons we can learn from that, which we might do well to pay attention to if we're going to phase out anything else that we think is wrong and needs to be phased out. I won't name any specific thing (if nothing else because comparing any of our current problems to slavery would be flamebait of the worst kind). But in general I think we should study the past and try to learn from it so as to do things more carefully and wisely in the future.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[eleuthero]

I think the closest you'll get is a parliamentary system--but then the highest level people are actually even more removed from the individual voter. ... wait, no, we have electors here too, nevermind. We don't really have a "single-vote" system in the sense you appear to be describing. The electors do have a single vote but they also can do (in many states) whatever they want whether their state's population agrees or not.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[gambino21]

From your example, I really don't see what the problem is. You imply that B is the more liked candidate, but if his own supporters are giving him a 7, and another group is giving him zeros, maybe he shouldn't win. A is the only candidate who doesn't get any zeros, and he has the highest average score, to me it seems like the system chooses the best candidate in this example.

No voting system is perfect, including range voting. And so there will always be edge cases where the system does not elect the ideal candidate. But range voting (and approval which is a subset of range) have been shown to give the least amount of bayesian regret. It is certainly better than the current plurality system which is one of the least fair voting methods.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ahabswhale]

If you're actually a libertarian, you should hate both candidates in a big way so why do you even care who wins?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrjimorg]

It's not that we wiped out the indians, but that we were emancipating the native wildlife who proceeded them and were being oppressed by them. It wasn't the europeans who discovered America, or the indians- it was the deer. Deer rights!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

Unless you're from a rural neigbourhood or a small state. Then you need to be protected from those pinko commies in New York and California!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[aperion]

Me and my wife have a bottle of KY, so yes it is sold in the USA. Actually, KY is the only brand of sex lube I've heard of.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[chuck]

And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

Insightful my ass.

Try reading the constitution. You know, the founding document of our nation? The supreme law of the land?

People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.

Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today. (Lack of education is another one.)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Miseph]

You're both wrong (and I guess both right, but I prefer everyone being wrong). Both sides wanted some things to be strongly protected and others strongly deregulated, and it just so happened that a lot of these things were opposite to the wishes of the other.

The south absolutely did not want to see things deregulated with regard to domestic trade and law, to the point that prior to the Civil War they were willing to override the rights of other states and force them to legalize slavery (see: Missouri, California) in order to maintain a balance which would keep their internationally unpopular status quo; they also didn't want to see the north increase imports of food and raw materials from elsewhere. On the other hand, they wanted better access to European goods and markets so that they could increase exports and decrease expenses.

The north, on the other hand, liked the idea of the south being forced to buy their manufactured goods and didn't want to compete with Europe for goods from the south, but did want to be able to increase imports of food and materials from Europe and elsewhere. As in, everything they wanted the south didn't, and vice versa.

No one side was more in favor of protectionism or free trade, both sides were more in favor their best interests and were more than a little hypocritical about it.

One of the great ironies is that the south only really wanted slavery because it allowed them to be competitive with more modernized farming techniques, but it was actually quite a bit less efficient. After the Civil War and abolition the south actually became much more profitable because they started to use less labor intensive and ultimately less expensive techniques and started to invest in heavy equipment rather than slaves. The north also became more profitable because the Civil War seriously advanced northern industrial facilities and technology, leaving them in perfect position to manufacture the huge amount of product required by the modernizing south and the expanding railroads. The bloodshed and destruction of the Civil War accomplished nothing that could not have been arranged by both sides simply cooperating and thinking it through (with the possible exception of rebuilding Atlanta as a modern southern metropolis).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal.

I don't know that I'd use the word "ideal", but I will say that designing a better system would be much harder than most people realize. There are some subtle things that the current system does that are very beneficial. Among other things, both major political parties are drawn toward the center, and toward moderation, as they seek to make their candidates viable in the (relatively) moderate swing states. This leaves a lot of people dissatisfied, feeling that their party doesn't really represent them, that they compromise too much, and so on. But it de-emphasizes the major political differences across geographical lines and helps to hold us together, and that's a pretty big deal.

> And the failures, as 2000 showed, are fairly catastrophic (i don't mean Bush's policies.
> I mean the turmoil, and lack of clarity)

There are always going to be close elections, in any system that has legitimate, free elections. We've had it before (e.g., Truman), and I imagine we'll have it again. People feel robbed, yes, and believe their candidate was cheated, and all that. But it's better than the alternative.

When none of the elections are close, it's because there's only one viable candidate. We usually consider those governments to be dictatorships.

A landslide now and then is okay, even good. But if *every* election is a landslide, you have a big problem.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

Except of course the one that matters:

Recounting all the votes had Gore winning.

Frankly, that's a pretty damning indictment of your government for the past 8 years. And the way it played out was a classic case of hypocrisy, the U.S. Supreme Court made all of the votes in Florida meaningless while pretending to protect them.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[cayenne8]

"Or maybe something crazy like, oh... lets see... one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level. You know, like other civilised countries have."

Except, the (originally) weak federal government has very little power to actually tell the states what to do. This is the United STATES of America...not the Federal Republic of America.

You are a citizen of your state first, then a citizen of the US second.

We are not set up to have one central power over everything...at least not originally, Federal power has been growing in recent history beyond its intended bounds. There are many reasons that you do not want that to happen...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Actually, I do RTFA]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run, maybe passed at a federal level.

There's no such thing as a "federal election" in the United States. You only vote for state representatives, not POTUS/VPOTUS.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kklein]

It's simple. You were never meant to have a voice.

Not YOU, in particular, but US.

I wish a great many Americans could not vote, actually, because they pick evil morons.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OrangeTide]

It wasn't until recently that people really gave a damn about the rights of blacks. The government didn't take the issue seriously until the civil rights movement. That was a wee bit after the Civil War.

The Civil War was a war of economics. You can't get a situation of brother against brother over some "negros". During the times of the Civil War, neither side cared about the blacks. Most people who were strongly against slavery were fringe groups who held the belief on religious grounds. Of course it seems few of them wanted blacks to start moving into their neighborhood or going to their schools.

So if civil rights were not important enough to start a war, what is? Money, you can start a hell of a fight when it's about money. The new order was clamping down on the south's ability to turn a profit, and the north was playing the slavery card as a way to teach the south a lesson as to who was really in charge. The North felt that if it wasn't for the slaves, the South would not be an economic power house, and therefor should not have a higher political authority than the North.

What started off as two sides battling for the House and Senate exploded into a full scale war. We normally think of Republicans and Democrats at each other's throats during each election cycle. But they agree on more things than they disagree, and are not as passionate (or desperate) to capture political power as the North and South were. When the South lost the political battle, they tried to pull out of the union and form a confederacy. But that was determined to be illegal, and force was used to establish the new order's control over all of the states. Inevitable resistance followed, and I'm sure we've all seen the movies set in what happened after that.

The reason our current two party system doesn't blow up in our face is because we don't really have red and blue states, we have various shades of purple states. A lack of unity in any one state perhaps keeps us from going off the deep end when things don't go our way. People still like to pick sides and play the Us versus Them game, but American liberals are not hugely different from American conservatives. And beyond the internal organization of the Republican and Democratic parties, there is not a major philosophical difference between the two. Individual candidates that run under either party appear to vary greatly on the issues they support. I think you can find a lot more difference between individuals than you can between the parties themselves.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There's several issues here, and none of them would fix the problem in the 2000 election, sorry.

1. Get rid of electors -- Aside from the occasional "faithless" elector, there's still the problem of what happens when, say, the president elect dies before taking office. Would be nice if this were cleared up with the same stroke. But that' won't solve the problem in 2000 since states would still be "winner take all".

2. Demanding the presidency be a nationwide pure popular vote also wouldn't solve the problem as you will have close nationwide elections anyway. And the "winner take all" concept, technically separate from the electors system, has benefits you don't necessarily want to get rid of just because your party got stung at one election over it. It's been to your benefit as much as your detriment, to say nothing of losing the "big mandate" exaggeration the electoral system provides -- a party relying on "big mandates" to get social spending passed could be burned a lot more than helped.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

As with any really close election, a lot of people felt that their candidate was cheated. The resentment will last until the losing party (in this case the Dems) gets one of their candidates into the office, and then over the next few years it will fade. We'll know it's mended when we have a landslide election again.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zacronos]

I would argue that it is completely revisionist to claim that the war was not about freeing the slaves. [...] The usual reason given for why the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states that allowed slavery was that Lincoln could not afford to alienate them too much since they might also choose to secede.

So let me paraphrase what you just said... the war was about freeing the slaves, except that in order to keep some border states on the side of the Union, those states would be allowed to keep their slaves.

Doesn't that imply the war had to be about other things too, if the Union was willing to concede slavery to states "on their side"? Why wouldn't all the southern states just say "Ok, great, we'll come back to the Union and keep our slaves, just like you said we could." if that was "the cause of the war"? It sure *looks* like there had to be more going on that was considered more important than slavery.

The fact is, the winners write the history books. Maybe there's a lot I just don't understand about the context, but so far I'm not convinced. I could very well be wrong about this, maybe the Union really was fighting the good fight, sacrificing themselves for the good of others, but I suspect the truth is less black-and-white (and FAR less morally uplifting) than most people think.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

To win the Presidency in a one on one race, a candidate needs to get 270 electoral votes, because there are a total of 538 votes in the Electoral College.

I'm confused (note, I'm Canadian :). Why? What if, for some strange and bizarre reason, Bob Barr actually won Texas, while Obama and McCain split the remaining electoral college votes in such a way that no one had >270 votes. Are you saying no one is elected president in that scenario? Does that mean one or more of the other states *much* change their vote allocation in order for someone to be elected president?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[cayenne8]

"If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves)."

I thank God we're the way we are. This is a large country, and in such...people living in different regional areas have distinctly different interests. I like the fact that if I don't like the way a particular tax or law is writtena and enforced in one state...I can move to another state that is more to my liking.

We're too large of a country with too broad a spectrum of people and interests to have a "one size fits all" type of rule.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Digital End]

So then you agree. Rep/Dem are above the law. Good to know our laws are just decoration for the dance of millionairs. I'd always suspected they thought it was, I didn't realize our citizens had accepted it. I guess that's the result of growing up and seeing it around us... for the last 40, 50, 60 years the gov't does what it wants, and everyone younger then that age just thinks that's okay.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lane.exe]

You don't know what you're talking about. Anything that is purely intrastate can't be regulated, unless it (1) uses the channels of interstate commerce or (2) has a significant effect on interstate commerce. What you grow in your backyard likely doesn't; wheat production at the time did because of the Depression and the war. And our new, enlightened conservative Supreme Court hasn't seen fit to overrule that bad precedent, because it is very clearly the right decision.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

People don't vote for president. States do. It's the law. Get over it.

Or you could change the law if it's become anachronistic (I'm not saying it has, but saying "It's the law. Get over it" is rather silly... if one were to take that view, women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote in the US).

Complete disregard for constitutional law is exactly why we're having so many problems today

Funny, many other countries don't have a US-style constitution, and yet they don't have the problems the US does. Mayhap you're looking in the wrong place for an excuse?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[cayenne8]

"That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves."

You mean the "War of Northern Agression"?

:)

Seriously, you do realize that slavery was not the central issue to the Civil War don't you? If Lincoln could have preserved the Union by keeping slavery around, he would have jumped at the chance.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[plague3106]

Wow, what an arrogant ass. You assume I'm willing to trample the rights of others even if I could.

And yes, that's exactly the advantage; I get more say over a system trying to control my life.. which means I have a say over how my tax dollars are spent, or even if they are collected at all. Ya, what a travesity.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zacronos]

The North didn't have slaves and was against their use.

And yet the North essentially said "You can keep your slaves if you you come back to the Union." I'm willing to bet the situation was complicated. Our history books tend to say it wasn't, and that the ones who won the war were fighting for the moral high ground. Pardon me for doubting the veracity of that in the face of evidence to the contrary. I'll admit, I could be wrong. However, you seem to think the issue is clear-cut and obvious, and it seems anything but to me.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[drodal]

If America were interested in civilization, we'd be a Commonwealth State and not the United States (with Virginia and Connecticut being Commonwealths in and of themselves).

The commonwealth of Massachusetts would like to point out that they are a commonwealth too.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[StingRayGun]

How naive to think that the wheat in "your own back yard" is intrastate commerce. Your water came from another state, as did your top soil, fertilizer and pesticides. Once harvested with machines imported from another state, it will be shipped off to even more states and possibly countries to turn into food. That wheat will then be exported to even more states/countries and possibly imported back to your own.

And then there is the pollution that runs off your field, into a river and carried not only to the farm next door, but next state. There is pollution from China ending up in California!

Nothing in the US is intrastate. Almost Nothing in the US intraNATION.

Everything is connected. Everything is international. States rights and nationalism belong to the good-old-days of flat earth and simple thinking.

(forgot to login with other A/C post)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ODiV]

Can a civil war end in any other way?

Truce?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[drodal]

mod him up it was funny!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[RasputinAXP]

This is why you need to vote for a third party. Any of them. If your state is "solid blue" then the ONLY way your vote counts is to vote for a third party.

The more people vote for third parties, the higher the chance that they will eventually reach the critical mass needed to at least get into things like debates.

One can dream, and hope.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[macdaddy]

You might have a point had the Civil War been fought about slavery. It wasn't. It was about commerce. Slavery was written in by the winners of the war to make their efforts sound more noble. The winner gets to rewrite history in their favor after all. It's like our Iraq, version 2. Saddam is dead and that's a good thing for the people of Iraq (except for the civilians who have been slaughtered in the streets at a significantly higher rate since we misguided invasion than ever occurred under Saddam's oppressive thumbs, but I digress). However, in no way was that the reason we invaded. We, the alleged winners, are rewriting history to claim that it was because Saddam was a bad guy; not because of yellow cake, aluminum cylinders, or because his mustache gave Bush Junior nightmares. By pointing this out I'm in no way implying that I'm pro-slavery or pro-Saddam. I do however like for arguments to be factual in nature.

Game on.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

Recounting all the votes had Gore winning.

Too bad Gore was more interested in recounting the votes in the counties that he thought he would do well in instead of recounting them in every county.

Frankly, that's a pretty damning indictment of the Florida state government

Fixed that for you.

the U.S. Supreme Court made all of the votes in Florida meaningless while pretending to protect them

The argument was that each county was applying different standards during the recount, hence it was a violation of equal protection. I don't like the way it turned out either but that argument has a fair amount of merit and even some of the liberal justices agreed.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[binary paladin]

It's extremely bad to throw the baby out with the bath water. States rights + a 13th amendment and a DECENT due process amendment (as in, not the 14th amendment) is a much better system than what we had originally and better than the current state of affairs. Just because a good system was implemented poorly doesn't mean it was a bad system. It's like saying, "Communism doesn't work," and then point to modern China as an example. And granted, that would be a valid argument if the Chinese were ever actual communists--but they really weren't and definitely aren't now.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Harin_Teb]

Either that or...

It COULD be a way to prevent the large states (IE Texas, NY, California, etc.) from having absolute say and dominating the small states...

Yeagh, I'm pretty sure that at least played some part in why it was set up the way it was... You know, kind of like how the US has both a House of Representatives AND a Senate?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jadavis]

passed at a federal level.

Maybe so, but we'd need to amend the Constitution first:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ..."

Either way, the (Texas) law is the law, and allowing people the power to change the rules in the middle of the game is far worse than a single undesirable outcome.

I say this realizing that such an outcome would be likely to hurt the candidate that I want to win.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[toiletsalmon]

The civil was no more about slavery than the current Iraq war was about Saddam Husssein being a "bad person". Nine times out of ten, any given war is really about the things that have been nearest and dearest to the hearts of men since the beginning of history: STUFF.

Money. Resources. Land. That sort of thing. The North "gave it" to the South because the South wanted to leave the party with all "the cool stuff" and the North wasn't having it. They weren't about to let anyone mess up their "paper", so they went at at it.

And in case you didn't know, there were quite a few more slaves in the North than you might believe. The North was not the slave free refuge that we were taught in elementary school. They just didn't have as much of a practical need for it as the people in the South. So they were more likely to feel guilty about treating other human beings like cattle.

In fact, one of the richest men in the country lived in New England and was one of the biggest slave traffickers in the US. He made so much money, and was so well connected, that he was able to get the President of the United States to appoint a "friendly" harbor master who just happened to always "miss" the boats that came in with slaves on board. He did this despite the fact that importing slaves was illegal here in the US at the time.

Check it out: http://www.tracesofthetrade.org/synopsis/

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Nadaka]

I promote the negative vote.

A negative vote against a particular candidate cancels one vote for that candidate. This levels the playing field for 3rd party candidates because a significant portion of people voting democrat or republican are not voting explicitly for their party, but rather against a party they can not tolerate.

This year, I am not voting for Obama, rather I am voting against McCain. Unfortunately my vote does not count either way because I live in a red state. I have no say at all in the choice for president due to the electoral college system unless I move to one of the few contested states. Some fucking democracy.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Noexit]

As a non-Republican, non-Democrat Oklahoman, I fully support such a law.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[FiloEleven]

Yes it does, because it is not in their best interest to vote for Obama or McCain even if that is their desire.

It would also reaffirm that we are a nation ruled by laws, and as such all men are subject to those laws even when it is inconvenient.

Not that any of this will happen. No, there will be a special exemption or "bailout" because those two candidates are "too big to not be on the ballot." And any of us who bring up the event in the future will be ignored or, at best, accused of inflating a technicality into something it is not.

I'm increasingly convinced that the people running this place have perfected the art of turning gold into shit.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[binary paladin]

I'd say that the 14th and 17th amendments are both worse. The 14th is a mess and the use if "person" in all its legal ambiguity has been applied to things like corporations. It's also so poorly written that it's been interpreted in all sorts of ridiculous ways like, "it applies the Bill of Rights to the states." How can you apply "congress shall make no law..." to the states anymore than the Bill of Rights already did? I'm not even saying that's such a bad thing, but it's a dreadful way of doing it. Don't get me wrong, I believe there should have been a federal due process amendment. That's one area the Federal Government should have power. "No, you can't throw this guy in jail without a trial. Texas, we're looking at you."

The 17th amendment is where we saw people forget the fundamentals of a Republic, more specifically our Republic, and go straight for a "democracy" instead. Of course, the system t large had become so corrupt anyway people felt they had no recourse.

When people cease to be vigilant that's what happens though. Most people aren't concerned about rights though, they're concerned about government handouts.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Xonstantine]

As another poster stated, Gore didn't ask for a statewide recount.

Additionally, are we including the military votes that the Gore lawyers threw out in "all the votes" that had Gore winning?

Gore and the Democrats weren't interested in counting all the votes, just the ones that would lead to them winning.

And, in any event, Florida law states if the election results cannot be certified by a specific date, then it goes to the Florida legislature...which was Republican controlled. The democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court tried to step in and change election law on the fly, and this is what was shot down by the SCOTUS.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jadavis]

I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that the current electoral system is ideal.

No voting system is ideal. And no voting system is clearly better than the one we have. Every voting system can be gamed -- that is, in every voting system, it's possible for some people to improve their chances of a desirable outcome by voting differently from how they really believe.

So what you say is absolutely meaningless.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[NeutronCowboy]

This is always something that puzzled me. People complain that the federal government is an overriding force in our lives. But if the federal government would be weak, wouldn't it mean that the state governments would be massive overriding forces in our lives?

As for your sig.... who gets to decide that only the sheep has a gun? What if the two wolves and the sheep all have a gun?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ladydi89]

And you're saying we don't have legitimacy questions with our current president? Do hanging chads ring a bell?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[binary paladin]

"That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason."

I don't know what USA you're talking about, but the one I live in simply doesn't do that anymore. Close to 100 years ago it took a constitutional amendment to ban the SALE (not even the consumption, just the sale) of alcohol. Today we regulate and downright outlaw any number of substances at the whim and caprice of the Federal Government.

Face it, the Constitution has been mostly meaningless for some time. The Supreme Court affirms its existence now and then on some technical issue but for the most part, any time the Federal Government feels the need that it HAS to do something, the courts will usually point to some clause that magically overrides everything else or simply ignore it and move on.

I'm not saying I'm happy about this, but the reality is... we just don't pass constitutional amendments anymore and I actually fear the day we do again because it'll likely be in a post 9/11 style frenzy where the screaming and terrified lemmings of this country damn us all.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lawrence_Bird]

ah.. because this is not a democracy? The US is a constitutional republic. From wiki: Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing theoretical checks on the power of the majority of the population.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[binary paladin]

I agree. What I find hilarious is that people really care about who gets elected as president when few know who their local legislator is. It shows two things:

1. The screwed up priorities of the American voter.

2. The fact that outside of all the rhetoric, what people really want is a king anyway.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Rizzen]

That's assuming that the Supreme Court rules in favor of this guy's claims. Even so, the governor would have to call an emergency session of the Texas Legislature, and then they'd have to vote on a new law. Even if they manage to agree on new rules in the 30 day session, that would only leave them 20 days or so before the election date to try and get the law enacted. It'd be a close call, and probably a record time frame for getting any law passed.

On a personal note this whole deal stinks of sour grapes on the Libertarian's part, but they do raise a valid point.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[nizo]

So the Senate isn't sufficient to protect the rights of individual states? Why should some yahoo in tumbuktu have more of a say who the President is than I do?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[binary paladin]

High schools are the problem. "Government" schools, more specifically, are the blight.

"Hmmmm... let's see here. Who would I like teaching my child and deciding on his curriculum? Let's go with the organization that systematically lied to and exterminated the native people of the land, has done everything at its disposal to consolidate and expand its power, has ignored its own laws, thought the IRS was a good idea and created the CIA."

I will never understand how everyone--and I mean everyone aside from some smug asshole here and there--distrusts politicians and constantly comments on government waste and what a joke government programs are but, as soon as there's a problem, want this same group so solve it. "Well, we have a problem. Call in the fat, greedy, inept bastard to do it again. I mean, he's no good, but the rest of us are too lazy to do anything ourselves, so he'll have to due."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Fallen Kell]

I don't think I would consider Austria large enough... You can fit it within Nevada and still have room for 78 cities the size of Las Vegas in the space not taken up my Austria....

Re:I hope they're removed,

[operagost]

That would be an "ex post facto" law-- probably unconstitutional.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

there were quite a few republics, and those had a lot of leeway

Right, especially Chechnya...

Anyway, it is all gone now — the President is now even appointing governors over there.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[AK Marc]

having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

Having people concentrated in cities is a reality that they knew about. This creates voting blocks that would dominate rural areas. To give rural areas a bit of an influence, the votes of people in more populous states are diminished. Those are the facts. That's what the framers had in mind, and that's how it works now. If you are only figuring this out now, you weren't paying attention in elementary school (or aren't American).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mordred99]

Hey .. Douches are made by Johnson and Johnson as well !!!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Bob Uhl]

Federal laws for federal elections might be unconstitutional, since it's the states' right to determine how they select their electors.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Bob Uhl]

Lincoln had every intention of making blacks equal to whites.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." --Abraham Lincoln, 21 Aug. 1858

And: "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kenj0418]

And how did they eliminate slavery after the civil war? They amended the constitution to make it illegal and to give Congress additional power to enforce that.

There are wackos on both sides of most issues, but I think most reasonable people that would argue for more 'states rights', would just like the Federal government to just follow the Constitution. If Congress wants/needs additional power not granted by the Constitution -- there's a well-tested mechanism for the states/people giving them a little more.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kmac06]

And there are reasons why many people *do* want this to happen. Mostly because they're big government, socialist/communist types (or more simply, they are happy to vote other people's money into their own back pocket).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kmac06]

Fun fact of the day: MA is a commonwealth because John Adams decided to call it that when he was writing the MA Constitution, and no one bothered to really discuss it one way or the other.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Skjellifetti]

Why wouldn't all the southern states just say "Ok, great, we'll come back to the Union and keep our slaves, just like you said we could." if that was "the cause of the war"?

For the simple reason that there were too many Union abolitionists demanding emancipation. The slave holding states were not going to be allowed to keep their slaves. This does not mean that everyone in the North was in favor of abolition or wanted to go to war to end it. The abolitionists had strong arguments among their factions over the best means to the end (compare the Quakers to John Brown) but overall, the abolitionists were certainly a very large and very vocal majority in the North. Harriet Beecher Stowe's book about the evils of slavery, Uncle Tom's Cabin, for example, sold 300,000 copies in the North before the Civil War and the Republican Party was formed in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. The abolition of slavery was a question of when and how, not a question of if.

The fact is, the winners write the history books.

There are too many Southern histories of the Civil War for that statement to have any meaning.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kmac06]

And if Lincoln had had no problem with slavery (and had somehow still been elected), there would not have been a war.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kmac06]

FDR is one of my heroes but I think that's one of the darkest moments of US history.

There, fixed that for you. If anyone is ever wondering why we have a ~$3,000,000,000,000 Federal budget (and ~$10,000,000,000,000 national debt), that's why.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jedidiah]

So they have the same election laws all over Europe?

That's what you're talking about here.

The whole 50 "states" thing isn't just a figure of speech.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[midnitewolf]

270 votes is 50percent plus one, i.e., a simple majority.

If any candidate fails to obtain a simple majority of electoral votes, a ballot is performed in the House of Representatives (435 people, with each state having a certain number of representatives based on its population. It can be a bit confusing if you're unfamiliar with it, but if you're really curious, check out the US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

So, not having Texas vote *doesn't* actually create a constitutional crisis, it just means that said ballot must be performed, no?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mrchaotica]

Have you looked at your state legislature lately? Do you know who your state legislators are? Do you even know what your state legislature as called, as well as the names of its houses?

I'm in favor of what you propose, as well as what another respondent said about repealing the Seventeenth, but that would require that voters not only trust their state legislatures (which they don't, not that they've been given much reason to), but that they know their legislatures.

EXACTLY!!!

Nobody knows or cares about the state legislatures because they don't matter. What I propose would cause them to matter again, which would in turn cause people to care.

Reform the legislatures into more trustworthy bodies (say, by eliminating gerrymandering, or by implementing ranked voting, or both), then you can start looking at how they apply to the federal government.

Fix how they apply to the Federal government, and then people will care enough to make the reform happen.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[khellendros1984]

Most people don't bother modding ACs

Re:I hope they're removed,

[thephotoman]

The summary isn't entirely accurate. The candidates were actually chosen at the state party conventions over the summer. Please remember that when you vote for President, you're not actually casting a vote for the presidential candidate of your choice, but instead for a slate of electors. Those electors were chosen by their respective parties long before the election date.

Thus, the candidates were nominated and officially listed. The candidates' names are simply short-hand for a slate of electors--the people you're really voting for.

For a party that claims to be about enforcing the Constitution, the Libertarians seem to know very little about the document.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Mr. Beatdown]

The equal protection clause took care of that one. Before then, the constitution didn't guarantee the rights of blacks and wasn't intended to. So yes, states' rights were being infringed.

Our nation was founded with a specifically limited federal government, wherein all the powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. Barring constitutional amendments, the scope of the federal government should be limited far more than it has been. State sovereignty was a cornerstone of the constitution, and it allowed for some pretty bad things. But that's the idea behind a federation: limited central control.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ThanatosMinor]

KY is pretty mediocre lube and it tastes awful. Check out Good Vibrations for a selection of other lubes.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jhfry]

NOOOOOOOO That's what is so fucked up with our country now... people seem to think that the Federal government is the boss and the states must follow it's lead.

This is the United STATES of America. The individual states agreed to give some of their sovereign power to a governing body that would facilitate trade, provide mutual protection, and so on... they did not agree that the Federal government could determine how their state's government worked, how their state chose delegates to represent their state in national elections, or how their state functioned in any way.

I hate how people seem to think that anything worth doing must be done at the federal level. Fuck that... move the power back to the states, counties, and municipalities. Make local elections more important than federal ones. So we can all shake the hand of the person who most directly effects our local economy.

I say the states need to rise up and demand their rights back.

I believe that an amendment should be made that prevents the federal government from taxing citizens directly... instead they should tax the state's and the states should tax it's citizens. That way, the states could develop a tax policy that makes sense for their state. For example, some states would tax income, while some would go straight sales tax. If that were the case, you would actually see the Federal government become far less wasteful because a congressman could make a name for themselves by reducing the burden on his state with saving money at the federal level.

The framers of the constitution viewed the US as a collection of governments who sent a representative delegation to a seperate power to provide for a common defense and to manage trade with other nations.... not really unlike the United Nations. Imagine if we shifted all the power to the UN... how much influence would your vote have then?

Keep the power close to home, make the federal government answer to the states!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Mr. Beatdown]

Bear in mind, this darkest moment of his presidency falls in line with his reshaping of the federal government to address the welfare of the individual. He did what was necessary to enact the unconstitutional new deal reforms that are the hallmark of his presidency.

His court packing initiative was and end run around the constitution, but so was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. It's only a dark and horrible time if you believe it wasn't necessary.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[number6x]

One has to apply to allow others to write in their name? That makes no sense.

From Gerrymandering to Jim Crow laws, American politicians have a long history of trying to deny the right to vote, or to vote effectively to large portions of American Citizens.

So yes, in many places in the US the only 'valid' writes ins are write ins for correctly registered candidates. A vote for Pat Paulson usually doesn't count.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Mr. Beatdown]

People should be accountable to smaller group of others that they represent. A federalist system is a good system, because the majority of the authority lies closer to home.

Representative constitutional federalist democracy for the win. And in that order.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Mr. Beatdown]

Did high schools ever require civics or economics? You'd think and educated society is the cornerstone of any democracy. Otherwise the successful governing requires an aristocracy. Thankfully, our meritocratic democracy has produced the aristocracy the market demands. W00t! for business leaders determining the path of America instead of the hoi polloi. Ipso facto aristocracy via democracy.

By the way I'm not a supporter of aristocracy, but I'm opposed democracy by the lowest common denominator (bread and circuses) more.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[roc97007]

> As such, each US state can make their own laws in how they pick their members of the Electoral College (which chooses the president).

I think California uses a ouija board.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[defaria]

Let me see if I got this straight - you want to put the top 6 vote getters on the ballot so that they can be voted for?!? Sounds to me like you have a chicken an egg problem there bucko!

Q: How do I get votes?
A: Why you get listed on the ballot.

Q: Yeah but how do I get on the ballot?
A: Why you need to get votes.

I assume you mean whoever gets the most votes in the primary but in many states you can't vote in a primary whose party you are not affiliated with (which is as it should be).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hanshotfirst]

Sounds like the college football BCS - just what we need.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Sique]

And still they have separate states with separate parliaments, with separate tax regulations and separate state subvention programs.

Hey, the nickname of the state Vorarlberg is actually "Canton Leftover", because they once (1923) wanted to join Switzerland, but Switzerland didn't want them. Vorarlberg's biggest town has 50,000 inhabitants, all other towns are smaller than 25,000 inhabitants.

Same with Tyrol. I live in the 10th largest community of the whole state of Tyrol. The village has 8330 inhabitants.

And the city of Vienna is not only the biggest city of Austria (Graz comes next, which has a quarter of the inhabitants), it is at the same time the biggest state of Austria.

So don't talk about small. Austria is small. But still... they are a federal republic. They don't need to be. But they are for historical reasons: Some of the states (like Carinthia) have more than 2000 years of history as separate entities. The predecessor of Carinthia, the kingdom of Noricum, basicly today's Carinthia, Styria and Slovenia, was founded ~200 B.C., and Carinthia itself around 600 A.C.. It became part of Austria in 1335.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[kingduct]

Funny, I thought it was the Supreme Court that elected Bush.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Lally Singh]

I donno. As Texas is a given Republican state, maybe the Obama campaign will be happy to take the electoral votes from McCain?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[HTH NE1]

The media pays no attention to the state legislature. It's like they don't even exist.

Try watching something other than the national media... like your local media. You do have local news media, don't you?

State Senator Ernie Chambers of Nebraska's Unicameral made local Nebraska state news fairly often, and sometimes even national media (sued God). He was forced out of office due to the passage of a state constitution amendment establishing term limits.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[HiThere]

It's not for better or for worse, it's for better *and* for worse.

There were good effects and bad effects both, and we ended up with both of them. It's not always clear what dominated...or why.

OTOH, were I the descendant of a former slave, I'd be quite certain that the good effects were so dominant that the ill effects could reasonably be ignored. As it is, however, we are all left with an increasingly dominant central government, that may in time turn us all into serfs, slaves, or some equivalent not yet thought of.

OTTH, does anyone really think that we could have the current population density with the old weak central government? I think that current speedy transport alone would have kept that from working.

It doesn't really matter unless you are building a social model. We are here, and here is where we need to work from. But predicting future results of current policies is benefited by knowing what caused what in the past...and that seems hidden by historians exaggerating trivia for the glory of those temporarily in power (of some sort...not necessarily governmental). Certainly grade school histories are about as accurate as other hagiographical writing, and high school not much better. Some college history at least makes an attempt to do better...but not always even there.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

Effectively you have no say in either system. It doesn't really matter whether you're 1 in 600,000, 1 in 300,000,000 or 1 in 6,000,000,000.

The only thing that matters is how similar you are to the rest of the voters and what protections exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[stubob]

Sounds good, as long as on the first screen there's an option for "None of these mental midgets."

But how would the media have election night coverage? "Bush has a 5% lead, unless he doesn't?"

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

What makes those parties special is that the vast majority of people want to vote for one or the other of them. Given that BOTH campaigns made a technical violation here, it's fairly certain that there is something broken with the filing requirements or the way that they were communicated.

It seems to me being so doctrinaire about this only creates the incentive for abuse. How do we know that it wasn't some political extremist in the SoS's office feeding the campaigns misinformation? If you could knock out a candidate this way, there'd be real incentive to do so.

The situation with third party candidates is different. They're screwed by plurality voting. If they had a candidate who was a serious contender in a three way race, I'd say bend the rules for them too. If they are too weak to have any chance of winning then tough luck.

Is this unfair to third party candidates? Absolutely. But it's not what keeps them out of power. Nor is this about the candidates. It's about the sovereignty of the people. Rules that interfere with the sovereignty of the people ought to be set aside.

Deadlines and rules ought to be observed, but not to the point with interfering with the sovereignty of the people, which is altogether a superior concern.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[GreyWolf3000]

Or a situation where national legislation can invalidate marriages between couples of the same sex, even in states that allow it. Or a situation where the Feds bust open a marijuana clinic in California which provides medication for many people who are suffering. Or a situation where the federal government signs $(legislation you oppose) because $(a group of powerful people whom you don't like) want to apply their community standards to the whole country.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Joe the Lesser]

They seceded because of the slavery question, it is well documented, 100%. That was the issue that was dividing the nation, and had completely consumed the politics. If there had been no slaves, they may have one day been a civil war over another issue, but slavery was the issue of the day.

The fact that they felt they could secede however was a state's rights issue. If the constitution had been more centralized perhaps it would have prevented or hindered succession talk.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Antony-Kyre]

No, you misunderstand.

Top six vote getters (political parties only) in 2004 were the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, and the Peace and Freedom Party.

So, I'm saying those parties (not the individuals) should be granted automatic ballot access nationwide without the need to go through the hassle of meeting ballot requirements everywhere. It's almost a given the Democrats and Republicans will get ballot access everywhere already (except in this situation, hopefully), but it gives four 3rd parties automatic ballot access without the tedious work they have to do now.

I guess we'd need a Constitutional amendment to do such a thing, but oh well. It's just an idea.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004#Election_results

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Evanisincontrol]

Trust this guy. He has a 3-digit UID, meaning he was around before the constitution ever existed. He knows what he's talking about!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Joe the Lesser]

The proclamation was still the most sweeping statement against slavery ever made up until that point, and changed the game by making slavery controlled by the executive branch instead of the congressional.

Some northerners fought to maintain the Union, and some fought to free the slaves. Some were racists, and some were do or die abolitionists. I don't think that part is too whitewashed but maybe I've read enough history. The fact that the Jim Crow laws were passed after the abolition fervor died down is sad, but the north was exhausted from the war and the Nation wasn't about to rip itself apart again. What they accomplished was pretty amazing all things considered.

Lincoln couldn't have the proclamation abolish slavery in all states because he didn't want states like Kentucky to rebel against him. He knew that in time they would grow to support abolition, as Maryland had. However, he need the proclamation to reenergize Northern spirit, and to pave the way for black soldiers to be recruited to swell the Northern ranks.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[LrdDimwit]

The constitution specifically delegates this authority to the states: it is each state's resposibility to govern its own elections, including federal elections. You would need a constitutional amendment to make this happen.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[paitre]

Ever since the Senate became popularly elected, courtesy of the abomination known as the 17th Amendment, no, it isn't.

The Senate is no better than the House of Representatives, and hasn't been for almost a century now. It is ABSOLUTELY no coincidence that the majority of the federal governments usurpation of state power has occurred since its passage.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[bwcbwc]

Not to mention the federalization of the militias (National Guard), which basically precludes any sort of armed uprising in the name of states rights. Not that this was ever likely to occur again, but the other big negative impact is that it puts a large pool of soldiers available to the Federal government for adventurism in Iraq and similar situations, without having to declare a war and raise real federal troops.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[midnitewolf]

It's a crisis to some people, but you're absolutely correct that isn't a constitutional one.

Texas will still vote, it's just that if Barr succeeds, they wouldn't have Obama or McCain listed on the ticket. Theoretically, those electoral votes will go to whomever gets the most votes on the ballot.

Where it gets interesting is that in Texas, there is nothing that COMPELS the electors to vote for anyone based on the popular vote. 29 States (Plus DC) have laws that would claim to bind electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in that state, but the constitutionality of those laws, while untested, is a subject of debate. In any case, Texas has no such "faithless-elector" law that I can find. The electors can cast their ballot for anyone, and abstention is an option as well.

Obama wasn't going to carry Texas anyway, so it won't really affect his potential electoral votes, he still faces the same challenges to reach 270 votes. Assuming nobody hits 270, and it goes to the House to decide, Obama would win if the vote was along party lines.

McCain is in a tough spot without Texas though. If he can't appear on the ballot, and he doesn't gain any of the 34 electoral votes from Texas, he's going to be scrounging. If that happens, he'll have to win Pennsylvania just to stop Obama from having 270 (it would be 252-252, assuming all the other states vote along the lines of current polling, which is NOT a given.) to force the decision to go to the House, which he'll probably also lose.

Personally, I'd love to see Barr succeed in this one.. the major parties really do have this sense of entitlement implying that they're above the law by virtue of popularity.
It's all largely academic though: It'll never happen. Barr may well be 100% correct, and even have the legal right, but they will find SOME way to get the Democratic and Republican nominees on the ballot, period. There's too much at stake and too much money behind the interests of the major parties to have it come out any other way.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mweather]

Third parties already have to collect signatures

Re:I hope they're removed,

[OldOOCoboler]

Look, it might not be in the constitution, but there was this little dust-up called the Civil War that decided the line between states and Federal jurisdiction. If the states can override federal marijuana laws they can also override slaverly laws. So lets not throw away federalization, lets fix it.

BTW - Who says a write-in needs to be 70 days before? Isn't the whole point of a write-in something done ON election day?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[paitre]

However, they are still required to file the appropriate paperwork by the deadline.

And by the sounds of things, neither McCain nor Obama had.

By law, both should be off the ballot. Like others, I agree that it probably won't happen that way.

Unfortunately.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[paitre]

"some"

How about 1. unfortunately.

The 17th needs to go, and for much the same reason as the 18th. All its done is encourage criminal activity and limit freedom.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Abcd1234]

It seems to be a very strange system designed *specifically* to favour two parties. After all, in a three-party (or more) system, it's possible (even likely) that no one party would receive a plurality of votes, so you'd always end up going to the House. And odds are the House will vote across party lines, which favours the incumbent party.

Yup, very very strange... :)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ishpeck]

People in the southern states were keeping slaves.

That's cute. How do you reconcile this quote from Abraham Lincoln:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Yeah, slavery was a bad thing -- but it was basically the only reason you can't claim that the Confederates were 100% right.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[quincunx55555]

I believe the same scenario would be true for anyone that wants to vote for someone that does not want to run for President.

If McCain and Obama were really concerned about doing things right, they would have filed in time. If they're too distracted with playing to the media, then they gave up their chance to run in Texas.

It's not like each candidate doesn't have huge teams of people to take care of this stuff. Since they didn't utilize their team well; it is an indication of how they will not pay attention to details once elected.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[paitre]

Where do you think the US GOT the idea from IN THE FIRST PLACE!?

It's the bullshit 'they do things better over there!' argument.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hey!]

Al Gore conceded. Would McCain? Would his followers accept that?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ishpeck]

Do you think this best serves the interest of the people of Texas, almost all of whom want to vote for Obama or McCain?

Just because they want to vote this country to death doesn't make it in anybody's best interests.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ishpeck]

And today we get yet another lesson on why the electoral college is useless and outdated. How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

It's based on the belief that the popularity of something does not make it right. The popular vote for a KKK member as president won't make lynching black people right. The president is, like the rest of the federal government, supposed to be subject to a law higher than popularity and electability -- one that preserves the rights of each individual.

Moreover, if any of the federal offices were used correctly, individuals wouldn't really care much at all who gets elected to any of those offices.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[MindlessAutomata]

So you're suggesting "might makes right", that since in the past one force won over another that is somehow a good basis for deciding upon legal principles?

You can't fix federalism; appealing to a big fat government to save you is like appealing to a God; everyone wants some big embodiment of justice and all of them just think it needs to be fixed, although it never will be, especially since no one agrees on how things should work. And the God that can save you can just as easily smite you, and let me tell you, this God seems prone to anger.

The solution IS a state-centered approach. Smaller government, less points of failure; at least you can realistically move if your state is shit. That, however, is not the case when you have a big monolithic government. I don't know whether the authors would agree with me on this, but I think there's a reason most dystopic novels feature large, monolithic governments as the oppressor.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[rnj]

I like to refer people who argue the ACW wasn't about slavery to Jim Epperson's site. Great collection of documents and quotes. http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html One that's worth putting out there: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood." (James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[rnj]

As far as the legality of a state seceding from "the union", I don't think even today that is a settled question as to if a state could secede in a peaceful manner or not.

See Texas versus White:

Supreme court (in a 5-3 vote) ruled:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ResidntGeek]

Come on, man, you've never heard of Astroglide? I don't believe that for a second.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[JimBobJoe]

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

Huh? No, that's not the case at all. Congress has the constitutional power to create laws which affect federal elections. If a state or city wanted to conduct a local election differently, they certainly are allowed to do so. But almost all federal elections matters may be subject to Congressional approval.

Examples:

*The federal Help America Vote Act covers registration, voting and voting machine issues for federal elections. For the purposes of simplicity, states just use the same registration, voting and machine requirements for all other elections.

There are a few counter examples however. Takoma Park, Maryland allows non-citizens who are residents of the city to vote in local elections. Those individuals are maintained in a separate non-HAVA compliant database.

*Over the decades, there have been numerous bills introduced in Congress to require that states put minor party candidates on the ballot for congressional and presidential offices. One of these was introduced by none other than Rep. Ron Paul. Again, Congress can make states put minor party candidates on the ballot for congress, but not state legislature.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Shakrai]

Umm, Lincoln's suspension was provided for by the Constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

In any case, I'm not a big fan of the "ends justify the means" arguments. FDR might have pulled us out of the depression (though, WW2 was arguably the final catalyst for that) but the same arguments that he used to defend his policies are the ones that the Government is now using to go after medical marijuana patients.

Somehow I don't think the writers of the Constitution envisioned the commerce clause being used to regulate what I can put into my own body....

Re:I hope they're removed,

[rnj]

People who are victims of revisionist history, shouldn't accused others of it. Wars are never fought for one reason, except, maybe in American textbooks.

The economy was surely one of the reasons,

I don't agree. I mean what changed between the day before Lincoln was elected and the day he was elected? During the Nullification crisis the people who were talking about secession pointed to specific pieces of legislation that were intolerable.

I can think of one event that clearly shows how central slavery was to everything -- the breakup of the Democratic party.

it's absolutely clear that there was only one substantial issue between Douglas and the delegations under Yancy's leadership.

Douglas proposed to campaign on the 1856 platform. Yancy said fine, provided the following was added:

"Resolved, that the Democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the Territories;

First that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in the Territories.

Second, that the Territorial Legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any Territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any right to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever."

When this resolution was voted down, the Southern delegations walked out. (and had their own convention -- nominating Breckinridge)

There were no differences on tariffs (which is more popularly cited by the myth makers) or anything else.

Catton's Coming Storm spends a great deal of time on the Democratic Convention because it's such a pivotal moment. It's far from clear that the Republicans could have prevailed against a united Democratic party. Among other things it was quite literally impossible to vote for Lincoln in most of the South. (he got zero votes in 9 states, .9% in Kentucky, 1.1% in Virginia, 2.5% in Maryland and 10.3% in Missouri. On the other hand Breckinridge didn't get a single vote in New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island)

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Qrlx]

You sound like Gorbachev, asking for more time to dismantle the USSR.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[erroneus]

Yeah, good definition. It doesn't work that way.

What we have is something very different. As you may have read, there is some follow-up on the story showing that the Texas Attorney General acknowledged that the case is valid, but is mailing out ballots with Obama and McCain on it "in support of the troops" to prevent denying them their right to vote. Nonsense! New ballots can be printed in this day and age within hours! And if "the troops" want to vote to extend their stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, they can by **WRITING IN** McCain or even Obama. There is nothing about having the two parties that failed to meet their filing deadlines removed from the ballots that would harm the interests of the troops overseas.

There should be an additional motion to have the Texas Attorney General removed for wilfully breaking the law.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Chirs]

Really? Why?

What if I like one guy more than another guy, and both of them are way better than the rest?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[arminw]

...It allowed slavery...

All states still allow slavery. It has been renamed --> debt.

If you have lots of debt, you might have to continue working in your current job, even if you hate your slave-driver boss with a purple passion. Otherwise, you might go free and find a better boss.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[arminw]

..actual international government becomes the natural thing...

Why yes, of course! The Bible predicts such a world government and its head will be the anti-christ, also named as the lawless one, the man of sin. He will bring in the mark of the beast 666. That's exactly what the world needs!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[arminw]

...You'd easily end up with individuals willing to trade in slave-produced goods from the south...

So instead we now have slave-produced goods from China, Indonesia and elsewhere, sold by huge corporations, such as Walmart.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Zirnike]

Not to sound cynical, but 'cynical' is the way reality is... But if Lincoln frees the slaves, his party suddenly gets 1/8 more votes in the next election, don't they - and concentrated in the areas where they need the votes most.

Maybe I've been watching the political process to much lately.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[truesaer]

Judges generally seem willing to ignore election laws that are causing problems. In this case, 99% of voters support McCain or Obama, so leaving them off the ballot due to a technicality would disenfranchise those voters. A judge will have no problem saying the constitution takes precedence and voters would be harmed by that action.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if Barr is right or not.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[againjj]

You can't have voting system that is fair, where fair means that it follows a certain set of criteria that are to be expected of a voting system. See Arrow's impossibility theorem.

The article is a little thick, but here is a simplified version of the criteria:
1) No one voter dictates the result of the election.
2) All voter preferences should be accounted for, deterministically.
3) If an option is removed, the ranking of the remaining options shouldn't change.
4) A voter ranking an option higher should not cause that option to drop in the election results.
5) Any election result should be possible by some combination of votes.
Equivalently, (4) and (5) can be replaced with
6) If every voter prefers option a to option b, then the results of the election should too.

While all of the above would be expected of a fair voting system, you can't have them all, though some systems have more of these properties than others.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[anyGould]

Like the inalienable right to keep and bear slaves.

Well, if you don't keep an eye on those bears, they get all uppity.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jcwayne]

That style was quickly abandoned because it was discovered that some lazy people refused to work in the field, and yet they still got the reward (free food) off the backs of their industrious neighbors.

I'm glad we got rid of that system!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jcwayne]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

Note the most important word.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jcwayne]

If the constitution had been any more centralized it wouldn't have been ratified.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jcwayne]

You can't "phase out" evil!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mmarshall]

That's why you had a civil war. People in the southern states were keeping slaves.

No, that is not why we had the civil war. Consider the order of events:

• 1861: Southern states secede; war begins
• 1863: The Emancipation Proclamation takes effect, declaring escaped slaves from southern, non-board states to be free. (This excludes slaves in northern and boarder states.)
• April 1865: South surrenders; war ends.
• December 1865: Thirteenth Amendment passed, outlawing slavery and finally freeing slaves in northern states.

Had outlawing slavery come first, before the secession and war, I would be much more inclined to believe that abolition was the cause of the American Civil War. As it is, emancipation was a strategic move to help the war effort.

Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley shows quite clearly the reason for the war:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

Slavery was wrong, and needed to be stopped. But it could have been stopped peacefully. Britain, France, and others did it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hawk]

>I believe the states do have to have an election,
>they just don't need to respect the results

Nope. It used to be common for the legislatures to appoint electors.

For that matter, it's not the state, but the legislature that has the power.

hawk, esq.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[hawk]

If Barr wins, the legislature can simply change the law.

In fact, I'd expect that a draft request has already been submitted to legislative counsel.

hawk, esq.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ShakaUVM]

>>So I think you should suggest a way that the system can be gamed.

>>Perhaps you are thinking of Arrows impossibility theorem which applies only to ranked voting systems. Range voting is not one of those. It allows ties and weightings. Arrows theorem does not apply.

No, but Shaka's Impossibility Theorem does apply, which says that people will not vote their honest preferences, but will vote however they think will best get their favorite candidate elected.

Here's an example using range voting. Let's say 60% of Americans are democrats, and 40% are republicans. Using range voting, we'd assume that a democrat would win. Let's say that there's three candidates to vote for, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John McCain. Say that half of democrats support Hill-dogg, half support Obama, but Obama has a slight lead. So we'll say people's favorites are: Hill-dogg 29%, Obama 31%, McCain 40%.

Now, if people honestly voted, then Obama would win. Range voting would have done its job, unlike the current system (which would split the candidates).

However, people will not honestly vote. Hill-dogg supporters will look at Obama's slight lead, and since they'd much rather prefer Hill-dogg instead of Obama, they vote like this: Hill-dogg 10, Obama 1, McCain 0. Obama supporters, worried about their slight lead, vote the converse. McCain supporters vote McCain 10, Hill-dogg 0, Obama 0.

McCain wins; range voting fails.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

You have uncovered the mystical secret of the ancient pixie sticks. The chemical composition of which turns a citizen into a docile servant. Two sticks have been added to your satchel.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

Sorry, I inadvertently left out the word "immediately". You are correct that Lincoln anticipated a future when slavery would eventually be abolished. But my intended point was that he didn't plan to eliminate slavery during his own term of office. He was going to leave it for someone else to do later.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Miamicanes]

> Pretty much any system is superior to that in use in the United States.

Erm, no. First-past-the-post plurality is just about the worst, and most dreadfully abusive, voting system ever conceived on planet Earth. At least America's current system requires that the winning presidential candidate win an absolute majority (50% + 1) of *something*. If only a simple plurality is all that's required, someone running in a race with 3 viable candidates could theoretically win with as little as 33.3% + 1 support. Or, put another way, with 66.67% - 1 of the public voting for a different candidate. The Electoral College might occasionally produce a result where someone with an absolute majority of electoral votes nevertheless has a small number of popular votes fewer than a losing candidate, but that's mainly due to most states having a "winner takes all" policy for allocating electoral votes. Most of the time, all the policy does is amplify differences, so a slight lead turns into a landslide victory.

One thing that's frequently overlooked... the current system is almost guaranteed to result in a president who's significantly more moderate than his/her party, and two legislative bodies whose agendas rarely coincide. It's by design. We don't *want* a government that can effectively pass sweeping laws on a daily basis. You only have to look at wonderful gems like the PATRIOT act to see what happens when all three branches of the federal government happen to briefly agree about something that appears to momentarily cross party lines. The founding fathers knew quite well that the best way to protect Americans from the government was to rig the system to keep it safely bound, gagged, and hobbled as often and completely as possible.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[calmofthestorm]

I stand corrected; there are worse systems than ours.

I agree with your point about a more moderate president, but feel that this is insufficient prize in consideration of the cost: our politics necessarily create a two party system.

Further so much has changed since the days of the constitution. The president is no longer just a diplomat believing himself unworthy to address Congress in person to deliver the State of the Union (Jefferson), each president has more power than the last.

We are transforming from a Republic into a Democracy.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

Very good point. I had to think about this example for a long time. In this case, the only way that range voting can work is with accurate polling.

Obama supporters will try to get Obama over Hillary, but they will also fear McCain and accept Hillary as a compromise. They will watch the polls to see the lowest at which they can rate Hillary such that McCain still loses. Hillary supporters do the same. However they don't do exactly the same. Each has a perception of the risk involved in possibly allowing McCain to win. Say Obama supporters think this is a greater risk than Hillary supporters. Then they will give more padding between Hillary v McCain at the expense of Obama v Hillary. Hillary will win because her supporters are more moderate and more willing to accept the risk of McCain winning.

At first glance, it seems odd that the more moderate supporters would be more polarized against a spoiler. I will have to think about this.

Perhaps we would still need parties to sort out this spoiler effect.

Specifically, looking at the polls, they will see

-Hillary 29%

-Obama 31%

-McCain 40%

Then they will adjust to

-Hillary 45%

-Obama 41%

-McCain 40%

because Obama supporters see more risk in McCain and would like more padding for Hillary v McCain.

Q. How do different voters coordinate their votes so that the democrats each get enough to overcome McCain?

A. They can vote in proportion to how much padding.

Q. What if they would like to vote a 2.4 but must choose between a 2 and 3?

A. Roll a 20-sided die, if the result is 8 or less, vote 3. If the result is 8 or more, vote 2.

As a side note, this strategy could be used for range voting with a range of 0 or 1. This is approval voting and could be done with checkboxes, which is simpler than numbers. But I don't think it is simple to roll dice, so maybe most people won't like this.

Also, I'm not sure if range voting would lead to the situation you described. I realize it is only an example, but there's the possibility that we won't come across this situation. For example, there might be a moderate candidate that all of the McCain, Obama, and Hillary supporters also support and who will get more votes because his supporters are less afraid of right and left sides and will put more of their vote towards him.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

There are reasons to vote other than 0 or 9. Say you prefer A>B>C. Give B a rating between 0 and 9 so that if A doesn't win, B will. Also, don't make it too close to A because if C loses to both A and B, you prefer A.

Another example from another person who asked:

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=969061&cid=25081019

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

Why vote 6 when you can vote 9?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[barnaby-jones]

You say A>B>everyone.

Give A 9. Give B 5. Everyone else gets zero. Or if you think A and B have no risk of losing, give B 0 so your A v B vote counts more. If you think both candidates are going to lose to another, then vote B 9 so that it stands more of a chance.

In the instant runoff, you only have one option: A>B

As for encouraging a 2nd place candidate, I think I need to do a bit more research. I forget why, but perhaps I was thinking of another voting system.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[ShakaUVM]

With Approval Voting, the same problem would occur. If I'm a Hill-dogg supporter, I *really want* Hillary to win. I guess Obama would be a better choice over McCain, but she's the one I want to win. (And yeah, people do think this way once they get a horse in the race.) So in a close election, and one that it looks like either Hillary or Obama will win (so I'm not so concerned McCain will win), I'll vote Hillary 1, Obama and McCain 0, so that my gal will get an edge over Obama.

Same bug occurs.

While range voting is probably the best system when people honestly vote, the real problem is that people don't vote honestly.

Take the alleged number of Republicans voting for Hillary during the primaries as a great example... if true, it extended the fight in the Democratic party for months and possibly hurt party unity to a point where Palin might be able to pick up some of the disenfranchised female voters.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[weltschmerz]

No it wouldn't. http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html

Re:I hope they're removed,

[weltschmerz]

Single Transferrable Vote is what you want.

A) STV is only good as a multi-winner method, but is rather terrible as a single-winner method (aka IRV). Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is massively better. => http://rangevoting.org/CFERlet.html B) Reweighted Score Voting and Asset voting are simpler and better than STV. http://rangevoting.org/PropRep.html Although it'll take some explaining to some of the populace. So offer alternatives.

At the voting stations, have two lines, a fast track and a slow track.

In the fast track, you get a ballot paper with the usual STV instructions - place a 1 next to your first choice candidate, a 2 in your second choice candidate, and so on until you have no more preferences between the remaining candidates.

In the slow track, a computer screen. It says "Which of these do you want to win?" and a list of candidates. The voter selects one.

Then it says "If that guy doesn't win, which of these would you like to win?" followed by a list of the remaining candidates and a further option "They're all as bad as each other".

Re:I hope they're removed,

[weltschmerz]

But Bayesian regret is the measure of the sum total of all flaws (even ones that have never been invented/discovered).

http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html

Score Voting has lower Bayesian regret than the other feasible methods, and is simpler than most of themo.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zsau]

I come from Australia, we uses both the single-transferrable vote (we call it proportional voting) and instant run-off (we call it preferential voting), and I can tell you, they both suck. STV in its purest form is hard to game, but it leads to massively complicated ballots which then require some form of simplification, which make it much easier to game (in Australian elections we regularly get unknown candidates finding themselves elected by surprise.

Instant run-off retains the two-party system (Greens get no seats off eight per cent of the vote; the Nationals, in a basically permanent coalition with the Liberals, get 10 seats off six per cent). In fact, I gather that it actually slows down the electoral success of third parties when compared with first past the post. But it does mean third parties might find it easier to be visible, because although they have no electoral success they might be polling high enough to at least cause a little concern.

They're also both surprisingly difficult, especially for immigrants, because you have to number your candidates. Condorcet would suffer from that problem to.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[zsau]

Commonwealth countries such as South Africa and India are republics. No oaths of fealty to Elizabeth II are necessary. All they need to do is recognise that she's the Head of the Commonwealth (which is not a position anyone will automatically inherit upon her death; it could just as easily go to me as to King George VII).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Passman]

you get em bob, disenfranchise Texas

How exactly is forcing all candidates to follow the same laws disenfranchisement? Last time I checked, disenfranchisement involved preventing people from voting (usually based on some arbitrary criteria such as race or sex).

Just because the name you wanted to vote for is not on the ballot does not make you disenfranchised. Annoyed perhaps, but not disenfranchised.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[brxndxn]

No, nothing more at the Federal level. America was originally set up to be mostly run at the state level and the central government shat all over the Constitution to make itself more powerful.

States get to decide how their votes are counted. If Alaska wants to do it one way with their set number of votes and Texas wants to do it another way, LET THEM.

Don't give anything more to the Federal Government. They pretty much manage to fuck up everything they touch.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Roxton]

By that logic, why have a range?

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

Right, especially Chechnya...

Chechnya wanted more autonomy than the powers-that-were were comfortable about (more than e.g. Tatarstan, which was otherwise probably the most autonomous entity). Autonomy or no, no-one in a sane mind would allow a region to, say, declare Shari'a as a local supreme law. Another matter was the ethnic cleansing of non-Chechen (and particularly Russian) population that took Chechnya in 1991-1994, during the "semi-independence" stage (after Dudaev came to power, but before the Russian federal army invaded).

Then again, the USA also invaded those of its constituents that have tried to secede in the past, so I fail to see how Russian attempts to forcibly prevent Chechnya from living made Russia of the time any less a federation than the USA is.

Anyway, it is all gone now the President is now even appointing governors over there.

That's quite true - the federation was effectively dismantled soon after Putin came to power; no true federation can have a state of affairs when heads of federated states have to be approved by the federal government!

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

Another matter was the ethnic cleansing of non-Chechen

Yes, that wonderful excuse covers anything — from Riga to Grozny to Tskhinvali...

Then again, the USA also invaded those of its constituents that have tried to secede in the past, so I fail to see how Russian attempts to forcibly prevent Chechnya from living made Russia of the time any less a federation than the USA is.

That was during a civil war — in the middle of the 19th century. Hardly justifies Russia's barbarity at the end of th 20th... Also, the US was fighting the States, which previously agreed to an irrevocable Union — US Constitution has no provisions for a split-up. Chechnya, on the other hand, has never joined the Russian Federation — unlike Tatarstan, or anyone else.

That's quite true - the federation was effectively dismantled soon after Putin came to power

And because the dismantling was possible by the central government fiat alone, the political system can not be a positive example to anyone...

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Alsee]

Imagine it was an approval voting election - you can vote 0 or 1 for each candidate. You vote the best way you can trying as hard as possible to get what you want.

Now imagine you walk out and discover there's been some sort of glitch in the voter list. The poll worker says your name is on the list again, and you are allowed to go in and vote a second time.

So you go back in, and you again vote trying as hard as possible to get what you want. You cast the exact same vote as last time.

You come out, and your name is still showing up on the voter list again. In fact the voter list says you are allowed to walk into the voting booth nine times, you are allowed to vote 0 or 1 for each candidate, nine times.

Well, there are tens of millions of voters and you're trying as hard as possible to get the best possible result. Each time you go in you vote exactly the same best way.

At the end of the process for each candidate you have either voted 0 nine times or voted 1 nine times. In total you have voted 0 or 9 for each candidate.

It certainly possible for you to go in and throw away some of those votes, but you get less voting power. If you ever vote differently any of the nine times you go in, you are always mathematically worse off. By sometimes voting 0 for a candidate and sometimes voting 1 in order to create a "5" vote for him, either the 0 votes have a bigger chance of screwing you out of what you want or the 1 votes have a bigger chance of screwing you out of what you want. If you vote 5 for your second choice candidate you either risk pushing him ahead of your first choice candidate, or by voting 5 you risk letting him fall behind some candidate you hate. Out of millions of votes, one or the other of those two issues is will be more important. Out of millions of votes you either need to vote 0 so your second choice does not knock out your first choice, or you need to vote 9 for your second choice to keep some unwanted candidate from winning.

It is really hard to change the result of an election based on your individual vote. You need the maximum "volume" you can get trying to make your voting voice heard. Out of millions of votes you need the full 0 or full 9 "volume" to maximize the slim chance your vote will be heard, the the deciding vote controlling the election.

The only reason to muck around with any number from 1 to 8 is if there's some candidate you know has zero chance of winning, and you want to "send a message" by ranking your first choice a 9 and your second choice an 8. But if that candidate has no chance of winning, you can send a stronger message by ranking him a 9 anyway. Eight people ranking him 9 would send as strong a message as nine people ranking him 8.

-

Re:I hope they're removed,

[JAlexoi]

Well actually when you look at the powers that are given to those governors, they should be appointed. Since those are like local WallMart managers, only there to to the master's bidding. The local parliaments are still elected.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[JAlexoi]

Unfortunately, your constitution was just plain incomplete. You can't expect to have a well defined base state law in such a small set of documents. I think that US constitution was just too hastily drafted.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[JAlexoi]

There are some ranking techniques when a party runs for parliament and presents a list. The ranking defines witch people you would like to see in parliament. And it actually works.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[JAlexoi]

Well in Europe, any EU citizen officially living and registered in another EU country may vote and run in the municipal elections. So in theory some small town in Spain has 100% non Spanish(neither ethnically nor by citizenship) municipal government.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[swillden]

They seceded because of the slavery question, it is well documented, 100%.

There were a LOT of reasons the south disagreed with the north. Slavery was one of them, and the largest single one, but it was not the whole cause.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Teancum]

I highly doubt that a popular movement (aka well > 50% of the voting population of that state) within a state to secede from the USA would be met with significant resistance on the part of the Federal government, previous SCOTUS rulings to the contrary. It wouldn't even be the realm of the court system anyway, but would be a political situation to be dealt with by the President and Congress.

I'll say it again, it wasn't the secession that was at issue (originally), but rather the open rebellion and declaration of war against the Federal government that triggered the actual fighting. Furthermore, additional actions in support of the rebellion in states that had not formally seceded (including in Maryland that never actually did leave the union) were actions that brought out open warfare.

Had cooler heads prevailed in South Carolina, they may have actually been able to succeed in their endeavor to leave the USA. Certainly the debates between members of Congress and/or negotiations between the Secretary of State and representatives of various state governments would have been interesting if the sentiment for secession continued without large scale bloodshed.

Silly lawsuits like the one you are citing here (Texas vs. White) don't represent formal actions taken by state legislatures and governors wishing for a break in relations, as the issue at hand in that case was more about the technical status of Texas as a state during the Confederate period, and an individual trying to weasel their way through this obscure legal "loophole" claiming special privileges due to political instability of the era. SCOTUS, in my opinion, found the correct answer even if the rationale is dubious. It certainly isn't precedent setting in terms of a popular movement for secession.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Alsee]

I read the post you linked. It provided a perfect example of what I was saying. If you read to the bottom it concludes with "However, people will not honestly vote. Hill-dogg supporters will look at Obama's slight lead, and since they'd much rather prefer Hill-dogg instead of Obama, they vote like this: Hill-dogg 10, Obama 1, McCain 0. Obama supporters, worried about their slight lead, vote the converse. McCain supporters vote McCain 10, Hill-dogg 0, Obama 0.

If you tweak that "Obama 1" into "Obama 0", you'll see that his example has degenerated exactly the way I said it would. It turns into approval voting with people using the limit values - 0 and 10.

His example was intended to prove what approval voting is BAD... intended to prove how and why approval voting will elect the worst candidate last choice candiate... but it also showed the min-max effect turning range voting into 0 1 approval voting.

I give a full explanation why there is never ever ever any valid reason to vote anything except 0 or 9 in this post.

The best voting system is called Condorcet voting. You put the candidates in order, like Hillary #1 Barack #2 and McCain #3. Condocet then look at it as a bunch of 1v1 races. It looks at Hillary-vs-McCain, Barack-vs-McCain, and Hillary-vs-Obama as three seperate races. With 60% Democrats, presumably Hillary would beat McCain in that race, and Obama would beat McCain in that other race. It would also look across all voters to decide Hillary-vs-Obama. Democrats might have some light preference one way or the other, but in fact it would likely be the Republicans overwhelmingly deciding that race based upon which candidate they found less offensive - which candidate they put in their second slot. Condorcet voting finds the best most "central" candidate.

By a variety of mathematically reasonable standards of measurement, Condorcet is provably the best voting system when there are more than two candidates

I highly recommend the website Accurate Democracy.
They give an excellent discussion of Condorcet and a variety of other problems of democracy and solutions to building the best possible democracy. He have learned a lot about how political and election systems work in the last few hundred years. The authors of the US Constitution were brilliant guys, but there's a lot they just didn't know, and in a number of ways our system of government is flawed or just plain broken, and in many cases we do know how to fix it. It just tends to be politically impossible impossible to have our system vote to fix itself. The biases in place and those who benefit from the current power distribution have no interest in surrendering those selfserving advantages. For example it is virtually impossible to make any change to the presidential election process because any change will create a short term benefit towards either the Democrats or the Republicans, so the other side will always rationalize arguments to reject it.

If by any chance you found a new Democratic government from scratch somewhere else, I'd be more than happy to join up to use all of the accumulated knowledge from math and history and sociology and every other field of human knowledge to design the best possible mechanisms of Democracy we know how :D

P.S.
If you wanted to make the link in your post a proper clickable link, it goes like this:
<A href="address">text</A>

You write:
<A href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=969061&cid=25081019">Hello there!</A>

and it shows up like this:
Hello there!

-

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Hertzyscowicz]

Just imagine the legal stink that Barr could raise if they tried to apply that retroactively to slip in their candidates. Of course, it would propably be a case of lesser loss than not having their candidates run in the state. I wonder, how much of a majority would it take to ram that through? The Democrats and Republicans seem to be pretty tied in the house of representatives, so Democrats could filibuster the legislation to keep McCain from getting the Texas delegates. That would at least earn them my respect.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, that wonderful excuse covers anything from Riga to Grozny to Tskhinvali...

Well, it was factual in Chechnya for one, though it's still a poor excuse for the actions that took place afterwards (just as ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians by Serbs before the Kosovo war is a poor excuse for ethnic cleansing of Serbs by Albanians after the war); especially given that in the end, even now that Chechnya is a part of Russia again, no Russian refugees have returned back. Still, it certainly was a valid reason back in 1994, and played part in the decisions that were made then.

That was during a civil war in the middle of the 19th century. Hardly justifies Russia's barbarity at the end of th 20th...

Did the US give its States the right to secede sometime after the 19th century? If not, I dare say that nothing changed.

. Also, the US was fighting the States, which previously agreed to an irrevocable Union US Constitution has no provisions for a split-up. Chechnya, on the other hand, has never joined the Russian Federation unlike Tatarstan, or anyone else.

Arguably, if there are no specific provisions, one could say that it is an obvious right then (in the lack of any restrictions)? That was the card the Southern states played.

As for Chechnya, it was conquered by and incorporated into the Russian Empire a long time ago. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union was a self-declared (and universally accepted) legal successor to the Empire, and Russian Federation is a successor of both the USSR and the RSFSR. Through that chain of succession, Chechnya always remained a part of Russia. And if you doubt the right of conquest, then what can you say about e.g. Texas in the US?

And because the dismantling was possible by the central government fiat alone, the political system can not be a positive example to anyone...

It was done absolutely legally by amending the Constitution by appropriate majorities - because both houses of the parliament were stacked by Putin's supporters (and that happened because the sheeple faithfully voted them in, yearning for a "strong hand"). Any state which allows its Constitution to be amended can fall prey to the same thing, including the US - why, if you had sufficient support in the Congress, you could rewrite the US Constitution to make it an absolute monarchy tomorrow. (On a side note, a state which does not allow its Constitution, or parts of it, to be amended - Germany, Iran etc - is just plain moronic: if people want it, they'll amend it anyway, by force of guns if needed).

Re:I hope they're removed,

[johnlcallaway]

I was trying to point out that this is a constitutional issue, As other posts pointed out, it requires a constitutional amendment to change it, not passing a federal law.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer what I my point was.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[taliesin1077]

You're right there. It makes no sense. However, no....one does not have to register so that others can write in their name. They have to register for said votes to even be counted.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[wondafucka]

But then I would have to draw more people in my editorial cartoons. Gee, why does making a political comic's life harder always involve doing the right thing. Example of political cartoon that doesn't need another four characters in it: http://www.postmodernsideshow.com/obamaride

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Raenex]

Almost all of them had to go to work for former slave owners, doing the same kinds of things they'd done before, only now they were responsible for their own debts and bills, providing food and housing and whatnot for themselves and their children.

I don't understand this. Why wouldn't the former slave owner agree to the same arrangements as before? He's getting essentially slave labor in a free market (he's just paying room and board as he did before). The only thing different is that as more opportunities opened up the virtual slave would be free to renegotiate or move on.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

Arguably, if there are no specific provisions, one could say that it is an obvious right then (in the lack of any restrictions)? That was the card the Southern states played.

Wrongly...

As for Chechnya, it was conquered by and incorporated into the Russian Empire a long time ago

As were Novgorod and Tver. No. Russia's current subjects have all "volunteerly" joined into the (new) Federation in the early 1990ies. Except Chechnya, which declared independence, and was brought back under heel as a result of two wars — both waged decades after UN renounced "right of conquest".

And if you doubt the right of conquest, then what can you say about e.g. Texas in the US?

As a matter of fact, Texas joined the Union on condition of being allowed to leave. It still has that right — unlike other States. Puerto Rico's special terms are nice too.

Your attempts to portray Russia as the same (or, perhaps, only slightly worse) than US are quite ridiculous. There is nothing ugly, that US have done in the last 150 years, that Russia (or China, another big offender) have not trumped with gusto within the last 60.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

As were Novgorod and Tver. No. Russia's current subjects have all "volunteerly" joined into the (new) Federation in the early 1990ies. Except Chechnya, which declared independence, and was brought back under heel as a result of two wars both waged decades after UN renounced "right of conquest".

I would disagree. RF was not formed by consensus - it was the same old country, RSFSR, merely renamed within the same borders. Since RSFSR was never properly dissolved, all regions that were in RSFSR became part of RF, whether they wanted it or not.

Well, anyway, I don't see much point in arguing about it. The notion that code of conduct in wars between recognized States is somehow different from "police actions" and "restoring the constitutional order" on the sovereign territory of one State is absurd, in my opinion. You kill people to further a goal either way.

As a matter of fact, Texas joined the Union on condition of being allowed to leave. It still has that right unlike other States.

This is an urban legend. Texas doesn't have any special provisions that allow it to secede. To quote Wikipedia: "The annexation resolution has been the topic of some incorrect historical beliefsone that remains is that the resolution granted Texas the explicit right to secede from the Union. This was a right argued by some to be implicitly held by all states at the time, up until the conclusion of the Civil War. The resolution did include two unique provisions: first, it said that up to four additional states could be created from Texas' territory, with the consent of the State of Texas. The resolution did not include any special exceptions to the provisions of the US Constitution regarding statehood. The right to create these possible new states was not "reserved" for Texas, as is sometimes stated. Second, Texas did not have to surrender its public lands to the federal government. While Texas did cede all territory outside of its current area to the federal government in 1850, it did not cede any public lands within its current boundaries. "

In fact, when it tried just that in the Civil War, it was forced back to the heel together with the rest of the Southern state - even though an absolute majority of the State population voted for seccession.

Your attempts to portray Russia as the same (or, perhaps, only slightly worse) than US are quite ridiculous.

I'm not trying to do anything of a kind. I am merely trying to prove the point that Russia in the 90s was a true federative republic, nothing more. It was not perfect back then, and it is no longer anywhere near that, but that's what it was nonetheless. I also wasn't trying to compare Russia and US on the "general evilness" - only the political structure of the two states at certain periods of time, and the reasoning behind it. And even then I wasn't claiming that it was identical - merely that it was close enough to say that US as a federation is not entirely unique. Of course, Switzerland is a more apt comparison to the US, and I will not dispute that either - but your initial out-of-hand dismissal of the Russian Federation as a comparative entity was plain wrong.

It would seem that, in this case, you, as many other Americans, suffer from a perceived persecution complex (you know, sort of like a lot of African-Americans who start seeing racial slurs where none even remotely were). Try not to read into my words what isn't there.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[sumdumass]

Yea, they sell the Kentucky jelly here in US. It's in the geriatrics section of the drug store.

Some say it's good on toast. But the most creative use I know of is in the movie Predator where they mixed the contents of a green glow stick with it to make blood packets then the alien was shot.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[sumdumass]

And both are obsolete. For the douche, vinegar and water will marinate it well enough. For the KY jelly, just get the bitch horny first. If that doesn't work, spit on it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[mi]

RF was not formed by consensus - it was the same old country, RSFSR, merely renamed within the same borders.

At various points all of the other parts of the Federation were volunteered into RSFSR — except for Chechnya, which was brought in at (explicit) gun-point.

All countries have done it in the past, but nobody did it in the past so recent.

Oh, and that "ethnic cleansing" business, you claimed took place in Chechnya, sorry, I don't buy it. I have one account (from a granddaughter of a Grozny resident), that it was all fabrication, and no other evidence of it, except Russia's official propaganda. Of course, after their strategic bombers had a go at the city, there was no evidence any side could collect...

This is an urban legend.

Most interesting...

[Russia] was a true federative republic, nothing more.

It was not — not even then — if the central government's fiat was enough to dissolve it. And I don't mean the executive government, as you assumed earlier. You are right, that Putinista-stuffed legislature approved the necessary Constitutional changes — but it was still done in Moscow, by the central legislature, and without nation-wide referendum or anything.

initial out-of-hand dismissal of the Russian Federation as a comparative entity was plain wrong.

It was not. Having grown up in the USSR, I'm pretty sure, I know that evil (and its core) better than a westerner, no matter how educated, ever will. It was not just silly to compare their sham rules and procedures (which also change year-to-year to suit the strongman in charge) to the US' long-standing traditions, it is also insulting...

If anything, the speed and the "non-eventness" of the dissolution of the Russian "Federation" is evidence, that dismissing them as a "comparative entity" was perfectly justified.

It would seem that, in this case, you, as many other Americans, suffer from a perceived persecution complex

"Just because you are paranoid, does not mean, they are not after you."

Re:I hope they're removed,

[againjj]

These are fairer systems that our currently massively broken one, but they still are not completely fair. Read up on it.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[jonadab]

> I don't understand this. Why wouldn't the former slave owner agree to the same arrangements as before?

In short, because he's extremely peeved. After a very bloody and unpleasant war, which stripped the south of a lot of its resources, now Congress has been totally taken over completely not just by northerners (southern states were at this point not permitted representation), which would be bad enough, but in particular things are now being run largely by the *radical* northerners, and they're gleefully (and arrogantly) enacting said former slave owner's worst nightmares, and crowing about it.

This period in history is generally known as "reconstruction", but to a lot of southerners at the time it felt more like a second destruction. And they were not pleased.

Of course, many of them weren't going to be *very* pleased with any outcome that involved the union's winning and the dismantling of the confederacy. But after Lincoln's assassination, the kinder, gentler plan for reconstruction was set aside in favor of a harsher, more brutal version. Vengeance, if you will.

I think we're mostly over this now, and there is little real animosity left at this point. But it has taken a long time (err, well, a long time in American terms, as in, "The British think a hundred miles is a long way, and the Americans think a hundred years is a long time). And maybe I am missing the full extent of the animosity that is does remain, because I have spent very little time in the south -- very little, as in, measured in weeks, in single digits, over the course of my whole life.

Note that I mean there's very little real animosity systemically, looking at our society as a whole. Obviously there are individual people who have animosity aimed in various directions. But overall at this point I don't think northerners versus southerners is a much bigger feud for in our society than, say, jocks versus nerds. Again, though, I don't live in the south, so I guess I could be missing something.

But in the years following the war, it was a very different thing. People were *extremely* upset, and a lot of them behaved rather... emotionally.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[shutdown -p now]

Oh, and that "ethnic cleansing" business, you claimed took place in Chechnya, sorry, I don't buy it. I have one account (from a granddaughter of a Grozny resident), that it was all fabrication, and no other evidence of it, except Russia's official propaganda.

It would all depend on who you ask - ethnic Chechens will say that there was nothing of a kind there, of course, but ethnic Russians from that region tell a different story. I have my own acquaintances from there too, you know.

Assuming we can't trust the witnessess, I don't see why it wouldn't be safe to assume ethnic cleansings there, anyway. They certainly did took place after 1994, during the war, and were well-documented back then - and past history of armed conflicts along ethnic lines shows that both sides routinely engage in that sort of thing, always - I can't come up with any counter-example. Africa, Balkans etc seem to show a pretty consistent pattern. I fail to see how Chechens would be any different - they were building an ethnic nation-state for themselves, and last thing they needed was a significant minority from a hostile ethnic group. With all the well-documented facts (with numerous photos, videos shoot by the perpetrators themselves, etc) of Chechen fighters torturing and beheading captured Russian prisoners - soldiers as well as civilians - during the war, it's at the very least clear that Chechens weren't squeamish back then.

It was not not even then if the central government's fiat was enough to dissolve it. And I don't mean the executive government, as you assumed earlier. You are right, that Putinista-stuffed legislature approved the necessary Constitutional changes but it was still done in Moscow, by the central legislature, and without nation-wide referendum or anything.

Yes, and the US Constitution can similarly be amended by the federal legislative assembly - that is, the Congress - without a nation-wide referendum, either.

It was not. Having grown up in the USSR, I'm pretty sure, I know that evil (and its core) better than a westerner, no matter how educated, ever will. It was not just silly to compare their sham rules and procedures (which also change year-to-year to suit the strongman in charge) to the US' long-standing traditions, it is also insulting...

Did I manage to confuse you into believing I am a Westerner? I am, in fact, a fellow Russian, though (apparently) unlike you, still a Russian resident (but hopefully not for much longer now!).

Anyway, "long-standing traditions" are a different thing altogether. See below.

If anything, the speed and the "non-eventness" of the dissolution of the Russian "Federation" is evidence, that dismissing them as a "comparative entity" was perfectly justified.

I would argue that the last-decade slip back to authoritarism in Russia is more to do with the inability of the population at large to fit into the modern democratic framework. The masses had their democracy, but they turned it into the mob rule, and once there, were easily convinced by the cunning to vote for surrendering their freedom altogether, cheering joyfully all the way through. The political framework in Russia before Putin was quite adequate, with all the necessary checks and balances introduced and implemented; it was not unique either, and similar ones serve many Western countries faithfully. But you can't force it onto the people at large if they refuse to accept it, even if they truly are foolish in doing so. It was tried, and it failed utterly. Looking at the results of the "greatest Russian" poll recently, and seeing Stalin at #1, I'm not surprised anymore; apparently, the old saying that "all peoples have the governments they deserve" still holds true for Russia at least. That's why I'm getting out of here.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Mr. Beatdown]

The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is provided for in Article 1, section 9. Implicit in the placement of the clause is that it is a limitation on the powers of Congress.

For the record, I believe the New Deal legislation wasn't necessary, and we're in agreement on its unconstitutionality. Especially using the interstate commerce clause to justify the restriction on growing food for your family.

I believe the suspension of habeas corpus by the executive branch was also unconstitutional. Though one would think the Congress would have been willing to grant the military great latitude in deference to the President's requests, the power to suspend it rightfully lies with Congress, and can be exercised on in cases of rebellion, invasion, or in the requirement of public safety.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[goban19]

No, it was about federal vs state power. Lincoln himself even stated that if it would preserve the union, he would allow slavery. If you carefully read the emancipation proclamation it states this.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Geminii]

Don't forget write-ins. And "none of the above". And make that last option have some teeth if it actually wins - rerun the election, with anyone previously standing not allowed to stand again. Including any incumbents.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[plague3106]

You're delusional. It's much easier for me to get my point across to 600,000 people than to 300,000,000. With 600,000, it's much more likely that we'll be able to work out a compromise.

As far as protection from the tyranny of the majority; you JUST advocated that such tyranny is ok (your voice doesn't matter at all). Also, that's exactly why our founders had envisioned that the STATE, not the Federal government would do most of the law making. I suppose you'd only know that though if you studied the system, instead of commenting on what you "hear" an ocean away.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[tbannist]

It's not a matter of where the tyranny of the majority is ok or not. It is always present in every democratic group larger than about 100* people, and it's frequently present in smaller groups too. Like I said before, what's important are the protections against tyranny, not the size of group. It's like the libertarians say "Democracy is 2 wolves a sheep voting on what's for dinner". If the wolves are allowed to vote sheep, the result is inevitable.

Frankly, I sincerely doubt your ability to get your point across to 1 person who doesn't agree with you, let alone 599,999. And that's exactly why I said the difference between 300,000,000 and 600,000 is irrelevant, you have no influence in either group.

* There's research that indicates once a group grows beyond approximately 100 people it's impossible to actually care about all of the members of the group as individuals.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[plague3106]

It's not a matter of where the tyranny of the majority is ok or not. It is always present in every democratic group larger than about 100* people, and it's frequently present in smaller groups too. Like I said before, what's important are the protections against tyranny, not the size of group. It's like the libertarians say "Democracy is 2 wolves a sheep voting on what's for dinner". If the wolves are allowed to vote sheep, the result is inevitable.

Which is why the US is supposed to be a republic, and that's where the indivdual states come in... as a protection against the tyranny of the majority.

Frankly, I sincerely doubt your ability to get your point across to 1 person who doesn't agree with you, let alone 599,999. And that's exactly why I said the difference between 300,000,000 and 600,000 is irrelevant, you have no influence in either group.

You're playing fast and loose with numbers to try and make you're point, but you're failing. You act as if I am the only person with my beliefs, and everyone else in my state is against me. You're wrong. With a very few exceptions, there will always be a reasonable number of people on a given side.

* There's research that indicates once a group grows beyond approximately 100 people it's impossible to actually care about all of the members of the group as individuals.

There's research that says your research is wrong. See how easy it is to throw out facts without support? Besides, no one has to care about another as an individual. They only need care about themselves, and realize that by restricting another's rights they are also restrciting their own. It's enlightened self-interest.

Re:I hope they're removed,

[Schadrach]

I want to make sure I understand you. The Republican and Democratic parties are above the law, but all other political parties must dot every i and cross every t or be thrown off ballots and/or out of races on even the slightest technicality (even ones more minor than failing to meet a deadline). Ignoring how plurality voting screws them, saying that rule of law only applies to some political parties but not others is ridiculous. You can't have a fair election if some candidates get to use different rules than the others.

Link to the texas code:

[rsclient]

An on-line link to the Texas election code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/EL/content/htm/el.011.00.000192.00.htm#192.031.00

Re:Link to the texas code:

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read that correctly (I am not a lawyer), then half of Barr's complaint should be legally valid and half should not be.

McCain could not have filed in time, and so clearly does not (according to the law) belong on the ballot.

Barr complains that Obama filed, but said before the vote was tallied that he had already been nominated. However as I read the law, the requirement is that the paperwork be filed and certified by the party's state chair. There is stated no requirement that the party's internal procedures have actually been followed in full. Only that they be certified. Since it appears that the party's state chair did, in fact, file and certify the paperwork, Obama should be on the ballot.

My guess as to what will actually happen here is that a judge will get the case, will rule that Barr has no standing to bring the lawsuit, and will promptly throw the case out of court. Leaving unresolved the question of whether the candidates should, in fact, not be on the ballot. Since nobody can be found with both standing and the desire to sue, they will be on the ballot, and McCain will carry Texas.

I predict that because this is the only decision that the judge can come to which is consistent with the law and the facts, and will not get the judge lynched.

Re:Link to the texas code:

[Tyger]

That, or judgment will just be delayed until well into December or later after the president has already been selected, making the outcome rather irrelevant because the election will already be over and Texas will already have gone to McCain.

Re:Link to the texas code:

[Dog-Cow]

I understand that Judges are basically all party shills and that the law is meaningless when the Party is in danger, but how can one reasonably say that a candidate on the ballot has no standing in this case? If not Barr, who could possibly have standing to bring this case to court?

Re:Link to the texas code:

[mdfst13]

My guess as to what will actually happen here is that a judge will get the case, will rule that Barr has no standing to bring the lawsuit, and will promptly throw the case out of court.

Why? Who would have standing, if not Barr? If it just requires a Texas voter, I suspect that they will find a Texas Libertarian (e.g. Patrick Dixon) to bring the suit.

Re:Link to the texas code:

[toph42]

I think that's why Barr filed an emergency stay to prevent the Texas Secretary of State from printing ballots until after this case is decided.

(http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/18/bob-barr-rides-again-in-texas/)

Re:Link to the texas code:

[Schadrach]

Shouldn't any resident of the state of Texas have standing? It can't be that hard to find a resident of Texas willing to go through with it, I'm sure Barr would be willing to supply the lawyers if he's shot down due to lack of standing. =)

Don't worry, theyll set a court date

[Anonymous Coward]

For two months from now and get this all settled. Oh, what do you mean the election is before then?

Re:Don't worry, theyll set a court date

[Russ Nelson]

That's why injunctions exist.

try-getting-the-signatures-for-a-3d-party-in

[mahsah]

I imagine getting signatures for a 3d party are much easier then getting ones for a 2d one, timothy.

Re:try-getting-the-signatures-for-a-3d-party-in

[CSMatt]

I prefer my political parties to be of the third dimension.

Great for Obama

[RootsLINUX]

I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot. Texas is a very conservative state, which makes my vote here virtually worthless. But if neither is on the ballot, then the chances of Obama winning the state because of write-ins or Barr (or another 3rd party candidate) winning because their name is on the ballot increases. Basically if John McCain doesn't win Texas, its a very deep blow for him and this lawsuit is pretty much the only shot we have at it.

When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?

Re:Great for Obama

[beaverbrother]

This should be about following the law. If Obama supporters turn this into a partisan thing, then it will be Michigan and Florida all over again.
Obama's stance there was to let the party decide, because the candidates really shouldn't push for election regulations in their favor.
Obama's stance here will likely be to let the state decide, because it is a state matter and candidates can't bend the law to keep a party in power.
Obviously both positions favor him, so he will get flamed for it, but they are also both the right thing to do.
Here the libertarians are right. If parties can bend the rules to keep themselves in power, you don't have a true democracy.

Re:Great for Obama

[RiotingPacifist]

right because stoping a potential threat that can be stopped plenty of other ways is far more important than making peoples votes count (especially for a presidential election where having a week majority dosent matter.

Hell as its never going to happen id also suggest using 2nd preference voting. that way nobody has to avoid voting for their prefered candidate in case they let their least favorite slip in

Re:Great for Obama

[Artraze]

Hate to burst your bubble, but it is rather well known that Republicans are much more devout voters that Democrats. That is how Rs can win despite the larger quantity of Ds that show up in polls. I would therefore expect that actually this would end up at best a wash, but more likely to cement a McCain victory in Texas. However, I do expect that the 3rd parties on the ballot will be a bit better off for it. At least it'll teach the big two not to expect everyone to lick their boots.

Re:Great for Obama

[Zcar]

To me the problem isn't the electoral college. The electoral college is actually a pretty neat technique to protect geographic minorities. It gives a bit of extra weight to low population regions.

No, the problem is the entrenched two party system that makes impractical a real third choice. Just getting rid of the electoral college won't fix that. What we need it a moved away from the outdated first-past-the-post system of voting to something that encourages additional views, such as range voting, approval voting, etc.

Re:Great for Obama

[Creepy Crawler]

Well, I was not even going to vote for president. I'm in Indiana. R's had control and they ran the state in the ground... for 75 years. I'm going straight D (after voting some L and mostly R 2 years ago) except for president. I cant see Barr, Obama, or McCain doing anything positive here.

The Governor-R pissed up off because he sold our roads off, privatized damn near everything, and ignores the citizens. He's going down.

If you vote republican in Texas, Ill vote Obama in Indiana. I of course, have no way of knowing if you will uphold your side, other than honor.

Re:Great for Obama

[Neoprofin]

An interesting thing happened, and I don't know if it ever made it to /. A political group tried to get it enacted that Texas electoral votes would be distributed proportionately rather than all or nothing to take advantage of Texas' large urban areas (the ones that elected your 13 democrat congressmen) effectively turning Texas into a "purple state". I hear it ended right about the time someone threatened to do the same to California and destroy every Democrat presidential campaign for the next decade.(Or because it'd be hard to get something like that pushed through by Republicans in Texas.)

Pretty much a side note.

Re:Great for Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

We will abolish it if you can find some magical explanation that will convince the states that it would hurt to accept it. So, far, ignorance might just do it.

The whole point of that electoral college compromise was to protect the interests of smaller states against the tyranny of the majority. Solve that problem, and we can say good bye to that silly, silly, electoral college and start opening a can of tyranny of the majority on those smaller, and oftentimes, poorer states.

Re:Great for Obama

[TheQuantumShift]

"When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?"

When it stops benefiting those in power. So, never.

Re:Great for Obama

[Uberbah]

The electoral college is actually a pretty neat technique to protect geographic minorities.

Nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work out in practice. The only votes that presidential candidates end up fighting for are those in "battleground states", so the same 10-15 states get pandered to every election while the rest of the country is ignored. If we ditched the EC, a Democratic vote in Utah would be as important as a Republican vote in California.

No, the problem is the entrenched two party system

Ah, the two party red herring. Is Dennis Kucunich, who introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney, on the same page as Obama or Hillary? Does Ron Paul have the same stance on the issues as John McCain? Do the Log Cabin Republicans have the same priorities as the Christian Coalition? Having two parties in no way cuts down on your number of options or the number of views represented. Not to mention the fact that other countries with multi-party systems have just as much corruption (Italy) only to have more gridlock.

Re:Great for Obama

[StrategicIrony]

Gridlock is good.

I recall a famous feedom lover... not sure if it was Jefferson or Voltaire, who said.

"The liberty of the people decreases in direct proportion to the number of laws on the books"

While it's a bit of an oversimplification, I agree with it on principle.

I think the "more laws" approach is bone-headed and downright wrong and just makes a worse society to live in.

But politicians feel like they have to pass "MORE LAWS" so they can say the DID SOMETHING.

By all means, ammend old ones to match modern technology, but just passing more and more isn't a solution.

Re:Great for Obama

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

I think you just made case and point as to why we have an electoral college. You just said that you know your preferred candidate will not win your state, so you would rather your state not be counted at all because this will benefit your preferred candidate.

This narrow minded idiocy is why the founding fathers had the foresight to know there general populace shouldn't be trusted to make these decisions alone. Because people like you refuse to understand that your neighbors opinions happen to be just as important as your own and seek to undermine them. It's not a perfect system, by far, but it helps prevent lunatics like your ilk from obtaining pitch fork wielding mob rule.

How is removing a candidate from a ballot (or a state from the whole process) any different from keeping voters out of the ballot boxes because of their predispositions for party preference? Shenanigans like this are part of the problem in the US election system. In essence, you are the problem by endorsing the tactic for your own gain.

Please burn your voter registration card. You obviously don't understand it, and you obviously don't deserve it.

Re:Great for Obama

[StrategicIrony]

It makes a lot more sense when the number of electoral votes per population was much smaller..

Back in the day when Virginia had 10 votes and the smallest, Delaware, had 3 votes, they both mattered.

Now when Wyoming still only has 3 votes, several states have 10-18 times as many, making those small states TOTALLY irrelevant.

So... if we cut the number of people per electoral vote so that California only gets 15 votes and Wyoming still gets 3, suddenly all the states matter a little more.

Of course, this would elect the current Republicans over the current Democrats so it won't happen, but that's the spirit of the electoral college.

Re:Great for Obama

[Tyger]

If you did that to California, it would be a bit fractal in a way. The map of California would look a lot like the map of the nation, with blue on the edges, a few blue spots in the middle, and red filling up most of the center.

Re:Great for Obama

[drsquare]

The main failure of the electoral college is the 'all or nothing' nature of it. For example Florida has 27 electoral college votes out of 538. Now if one candidate won the state with only a few more votes than his rival, it means a 5% swing nationwide. If the same happened in Texas it would be 6.5%, and in California, 10%.

This effectively means that the whole election can be decided by a few thousand votes in a small number of swing states.

Re:Great for Obama

[barnaby-jones]

Well, to be fair, Italian cops will take bribes. Where did the mafia come from?

Re:Great for Obama

[icebrain]

Eliminating the EC might make everyone's vote "equal", but then we'll see candidates going to the major cities--LA, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. A handful of isolated spots on the map will get all the attention, and everyone not in those cities gets told to fuck off, cause the city people know what's best for everyone.

Re:Great for Obama

[icebrain]

I say we make a third house of Congress, whose only power is to repeal laws with a 1/3 minority vote.

Re:Great for Obama

[drsquare]

Ah, the two party red herring. Is Dennis Kucunich, who introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney, on the same page as Obama or Hillary? Does Ron Paul have the same stance on the issues as John McCain? Do the Log Cabin Republicans have the same priorities as the Christian Coalition? Having two parties in no way cuts down on your number of options or the number of views represented.

That argument would be acceptable if parties could have more than one candidate on the ballot. As it happens, Ron Paul supporters now have no representation in the election. Even if he stood independently, the first-past-the-post system means he'll just give votes to Obama.

Re:Great for Obama

[ivan the mad]

"When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?"

Good idea. Just don't complain when people with whom you don't agree scrap parts of the constitution you think are important or tack on amendments that you feel violate your rights. Consistency 4tw.

Re:Great for Obama

[fastest fascist]

So basically you're in favour of Barr's suit because it's good for your candidate, not because you find he has a valid point?

Well, at least you're honest about it.

Re:Great for Obama

[WillAdams]

What's stupid about the electoral college?

It was the Constitutional Convention's solution to the problems of demagoguery and ensuring the meaningful participation of states w/ small populations.

If you have a better solution (and a popular vote which would mean that a need for a recount _anywhere_ would arguably trigger a need for a recount _everywhere)_ is not better), please submit it as a Constitutional amendment.

William

Re:Great for Obama

[dzafez]

Even though, I also support Obama, as far as this is possible from Europe,
you post is undemocratic in so many levels, that it really bugs me. You
Seem to miss the sole basis of Democracy.

Your Argument: Taking away the chance to influence the election, from fellow
citizen, would be good, because the outcome looks more, like what I was
hoping for.

GREAT FOR OBAMA? NO, IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT GREAT AT ALL, FOR NOBODY.

Re:Great for Obama

[SuiteSisterMary]

The counter-argument that immediately springs to mind there is that, at the time, it was the United States; that is, a collection of separate states. The Federal Government had nothing to do with an individual citizen of one of those states.

It's different now; the fed routinely overrides state governments, and purports to directly represent the individual citizens, with the state governments being a management layer rather than the actual government, who all send delegates to Congress.

In other words, with this fundamental shift, suddenly you're penalizing somebody who lives in a low-EC state simply for where they live, because their vote for President, who now directly impacts their lives, unlike two hundred years ago, is worth less than a high-EC state's voter.

Re:Great for Obama

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually, Obama began his political career by using Illinois election laws to eliminate his opponents. It would be hypocritical for him to remain on the ballot in Texas.

Re:Great for Obama

[leppi]

I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot.

If I were a partisan bigot, I might say "Typical democrat response, pay lip service to voter rights, until it might knock out the largest republican-controlled state in the country."

But, I'll leave that for someone else to say. :)

Re:Great for Obama

[toph42]

Does anyone else find irony in a "you shouldn't keep people who want to vote from voting" post that ends with "burn your voter registration card?"

Re:Great for Obama

[Uberbah]

More simplistic platitudes. Gridlock is good when something needs to be prevented - like invading Iraq or passing telecom amnesty. It is not a good thing when things need to pass, like market regulation, single payer health care and emission rules for global warming.

Re:Great for Obama

[Uberbah]

Eliminating the EC might make everyone's vote "equal", but then we'll see candidates going to the major cities--LA, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. A handful of isolated spots on the map will get all the attention, and everyone not in those cities gets told to fuck off, cause the city people know what's best for everyone.

Also not true. Where the candidates would spend their time isn't necessarily in the largest cities, but in major media markets - which would cover the vast majority of the population. Sure, the upper midwest, Hawaii and Alaska would receive much less attention, but that would be no different than how it is now.

Re:Great for Obama

[Uberbah]

That argument would be acceptable if parties could have more than one candidate on the ballot.

Um, we did that already. It was called a primary, and both major parties had one.

Re:Great for Obama

[WillAdams]

Actually, measured per capita, it's the large EC state voters who get less bang for their vote which is the whole point.

Banzhaf's treatment of votes as coin flips is bogus.

William

Re:Great for Obama

[Catiline]

Please vote. A null vote (no candidate selected) says you're fine with the way things are run, and from your comment it's clear that you aren't. If you want to see change in the political arena, vote for one of the third party candidates -- Green, Constitutional, Libertarian, Independent -- just pick one.

Like the Adult Swim bump says, "We don't care who you vote for, just vote."

Re:Great for Obama

[Creepy Crawler]

---A null vote does not say you are ok with how things are, it says you don't believe in the voting system (or you don't care enough to vote for any other reason.)

I was planning to vote for all BUT presidential. I believe whoever wins, we're the ones who'll pay. It's either "Bush 3.0" or "I hates teh Bush". I dont want either, and the 3rd party candidates are nuts. In other countries, a null vote is called No Confidence.

---The EC is a joke. I don't live in a swing state, therefore my vote doesn't count.

It never did. I understand why the EC is set up the way it is. Each state has EC votes = House + Senate at a minimum of 3 votes. This system accounts for population AND shows that states are equal. To true, EC votes are determined by state laws. Most of those laws indicate majority gets all. That's the problem, not the EC.

And show me a federal election that 1 vote mattered. I've seen local elections with 3 vote difference, with an immediate recount.

---If the EC were gotten rid of, as someone said, their vote in Indiana would mean just as much as a vote a California. Every vote would count. You would get much, much larger voter turnout.

Then we would also get law that would suit California, but not Indiana. I like the fact that the founders could forsee the idea that each state is equal, but with varying populations and needs. I would also argue that people still wouldn't care, regardless of direct popular or EC voting.

Re:Great for Obama

[midnitewolf]

Maine and Nebraska already do this.

Each congressional district has 1 electoral vote determined by the votes of the people in that district. The two remaining electoral votes in each state go to the popular statewide vote-winner.

Other states have considered adopting this method as well.

Re:Great for Obama

[CodeBuster]

I cannot speak for Texas, being a resident of California and not of Texas, but here in California the Democratic majority in the state assembly has consistently put the kabosh on any attempt to redistrict or undo the gerrymandering of the political districts which makes it very likely that they would also use their majority to shut down any proportionality proposal for California electors. Perhaps the two sides are more evenly matched in Texas and the vote could go either way, but here in California about the best that the Republicans (Arnold Schwarzenegger, the current governor, is a Republican but the Democratic majority in the state assembly means that he frequently has to compromise to get anything meaningful done leading to accusations of 'Republicrat' being leveled against him by some Republicans) can manage is to delay state budgets (as they are doing right now) in an attempt to prevent really awful spending proposals and new state bond indebtedness (California state bond debt has increased by 1250%+ from 1978 to now which corresponds roughly with the end of the Reagan era and the beginning of the more reliably Democratic California that we have today).

Re:Great for Obama

[Neoprofin]

That was the point, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California wanted to destroy the value of the respective states because each state is a stronghold of the the other parties electoral base, and moving it to proportional value would severely damage a campaign strength they can more or less take for granted.

Re:Great for Obama

[zen-theorist]

I'm an Obama supporter living in Texas and I think this is actually a great thing to have both McCain and Obama's names removed from the ballot. Texas is a very conservative state, which makes my vote here virtually worthless. But if neither is on the ballot, then the chances of Obama winning the state because of write-ins or Barr (or another 3rd party candidate) winning because their name is on the ballot increases. Basically if John McCain doesn't win Texas, its a very deep blow for him and this lawsuit is pretty much the only shot we have at it.

When will we abolish this stupid electoral college?

I do believe that if the election was decided by popular vote, Democrats would fare much worse. They dont win blue states as convincingly as Republicans sweep red states county-by-county.

old news

[larry bagina]

I heard about this a couple weeks ago. Anyhow, the texas filing deadline was before the national conventions, but both parties filed paperwork on time with blank names and amended them afterwards (which is allowed by law). I thought this had already been dismissed, but it's going nowhere.

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

The Republicans tried to remove Barr's name from the PA ballots. Except that using a placeholder in Pennsylvania is legal, and not so much in Texas, if I understand correctly. You can get more details on Bob Barr's website. http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

I'm sure they'll weasel their way out of removing Obama and McCain from the TX ballot, but we'll see! In most court cases involving third parties, the judges side against them regardless of the law, so... good luck Bob Barr!

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

Also, for information about this specific case, see here:
http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/18/bob-barr-rides-again-in-texas/

When we missed our deadline in West Virginia (a month before Republicans and Democrats were required to file I might add), we were forced off of the ballot. The law is clear and belonging to the Republican or Democrat party does not exempt you from its rule.

Re:old news

[MagusSlurpy]

It's not old news. You heard the discussion about doing this a few weeks ago. Barr didn't file the suit until this morning. There was a lot of discussion in the Libertarian inner circles whether it was worth the effort, because it will almost certainly turn out to be wasted effort.

Re:old news

[DarkHorseman]

wow... blog bob barr, either hard to say, or sounds like a language uttered on an MMO...

Re:old news

[Born2bwire]

Is there any source other than Barr's website? I mean it is a little biased in favor of his position. I would expect that at least one of the two major political parties would have worked out the legalities of this a long time ago. Not to mention the fact that I'm sure this has happened before.

Re:old news

[starfliz]

yeah.. they worked out the legalities when they made all these rules that they don't feel they need to follow.

Re:old news

[wellingj]

The two party system must be fought tooth and nail.
An struggle for liberty is never a wasted effort in my book.

Re:old news

[maelstrom]

Reminds me of the Bob Loblaw Law Blog

Re:old news

[Born2bwire]

So they were able to avoid following the rules in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988? This is not the first time that conventions were held in late August (I'm not going to bother with the exact math) and this law has been on the books since 1986.

Re:old news

[halcyon1234]

If I were in charge of Obama's campaign, I'd latch onto this one as a huge PR campaign. It's nearly a given that Texas is going to go to McCain. Putting up a fight there seems to be a futile effort. So why not instead bring this to the attention of the public, and use it? Go public and admit that Bob Barr is right. That according the the law, both candidates missed the deadline. And since the country is built on laws, and it is the responsibility of the PoTUS to follow the law and not the other way away, he is voluntarily bowing out of Texas-- and do it in such a way that it throws down a public challenge to McCain. Will he, too, do what is right, or will he throw a fit and break the law whenever it doesn't suit his personal interests?

Win-win for Obama. Either McCain continues with Texas (winning it like he would anyways) and demonstrates to the public that he doesn't respect the law of the people-- or McCain drops out, and that's one less victory for the Republicans.

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

While that would be beautiful, I won't hold my breath.

You really think Obama is different, don't you? I'm hoping he gets elected just because so that many young people become disillusioned and cynical when he doesn't do much of anything he promised.

Also, McCain would not bow out even if Obama did. The stakes are too high.

Re:old news

[Xtravar]

As much as Democrats and Libertarians are different, they're closer than Republicans, meaning that 2 "liberal" candidates in an area would essentially split themselves to a loss.

Except the most famous libertarian of this election cycle, Ron Paul, is a Republican.

And Bob Barr is a former Republican...

And libertarians tend to swing Republican at election time...

Actually, it's really funny that you think Democrats are closer to Libertarians than Republicans are. Go read Daily Kos and you'll get a different perspective on things. But hey, that's what's nice about liberty - everyone loves it.

Re:old news

[PsychicX]

belonging to the Republican or Democrat party does not exempt you from its rule.

What the hell planet has he been living on for the last ten years?

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds!!

[Skapare]

Nerds love seeing news about lawyers screwing up. So this should be classified under entertainment or comedy.

Re: electoral college

[Antony-Kyre]

I am in favour of the electoral college. I think I'd rather secede than to abolish it. Then again, I am for states' rights.

Re:Hahaha!

[plover]

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

Re:Hahaha!

[CSMatt]

Expect a huge amount of write-ins for "Stephen Colbert."

Re: electoral college

[vthokiestm]

"Favour"? You seem to have already seceded.

Re:Hahaha!

[Vectronic]

I think thats the sort of the point here, this is a basic law about elections, about as basic as "be at work by 9:00AM" and the fact that some campaign(s) with hundreds of lawyers, and assorted other people(s) can't even make a simple deadline, that by skimming a previous link posted seems to have been around for at least 23 years.

Everyone knows that (most, if not all) politicians are devious little shits that try to circumvent anything that might be in their way, law or otherwise, but now they can't seem to even (metaphorically) show up on time.

Re:Hahaha!

[plover]

I bet you a dollar that Colbert would beat Bob Barr by an order of magnitude!

Although he might lose to the Mythbuster fans. His picture looks like a cross between Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage. :-)

Re: electoral college

[lilomar]

Ok, I'll bite.

What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?

Re: electoral college

[Onan]

And by "states", I'm guessing you mean the 6 or so states that presidents bother to woo, at the expense of the 44 that they permanently ignore? This is a good deal for states how, exactly?

Usually when people say "states' rights", they're talking about the championing the rights of states over the rights of the federal government. But to say it in the context of the electoral college, you're championing the rights of states over the rights of voters. That seems like a much harder stance to defend.

Re: electoral college

[hardburn]

I'm also in favor in Texas seceding. Please, go away on your own, or else we'll give you back to Mexico.

Re:Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because we all know activists aren't idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[gfxguy]

Really? So you don't think it's a valid complaint?

Let's just say, just for grins, that he wasn't trying to keep his name in the press. If you were in his position, wouldn't you point out unfair violations of the law to an advantage whether you wanted press or not?

Re:Personally...

[xstonedogx]

Yes, because strong centralized power has ever been the protector of human rights.

Re:Hahaha!

[QuasiEvil]

Actually I was thinking he looked like a cross between Mel Brooks and a used car salesman.

(And I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican... Can't imagine what non Libs think of this guy.)

Re:Hahaha!

[SECProto]

like most jobs though, when you are the two star workers in the company and you have been on time for all the other workdays, they usually will grant you a fair bit of leniency.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Nicholas Evans]

No, it's not just to keep his name in the press. Ballot access is a huge issue for 3rd party candidates. He's trying to make a point.

Re: electoral college

[Blakey Rat]

The electoral college gives states the right to select the President any way they wish. Sure, at the moment, it's done by ballot in every state, but there's no dictate that it *has* to be done that way.

Re:Hahaha!

[houstonbofh]

like most jobs though, when you are the two star workers in the company and you have been on time for all the other workdays, they usually will grant you a fair bit of leniency.

But they haven't. This is still the interview, and they both missed that!

Silly Rabbit...

[gbulmash]

What if Florida or Ohio decided to pass a law saying that the name of the official major party nominees had to be submitted 180 days before the election?

A reasonable advance notice to give time to prepare and print ballots is cool, but if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

IANAL, but I think Obama and McCain could raise a pretty valid constitutional challenge to it that might end up creating a national guideline for ballot deadlines, imposing yet another federal regulation.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[david@ecsd.com]

I don't think that a national guideline for ballot deadlines on federal elections is all that onerous. On the other hand, if there were federal regulations for state and local elections, then that's another story...

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[batkiwi]

There is no legal guidance on the steps taken by a state in choosing how to cast their electoral votes. They could toss a coin and it'd likely be legal depending on THAT STATE'S constitution.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[pembo13]

Selective law abiding, sweet. I personally believe in not obeying illogical laws. But I don't think that the average Texan follows that sentiment. So they should at least follow their own laws.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[Russ Nelson]

it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

Um, yes, that's how it works. What's wrong with that? This is not a democracy, it's a republic, and it's a union of states. The states run the federal government, through their senators and representatives, and the process of electing the president.

Way back when, the states also enacted most laws. These days, we've been invaded by an occupying power. We used to fear the USSR coming in and telling us what to do. Now we have the USA coming in and telling our states what to do.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[gamanimatron]

What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything? Political parties have no constitutional standing; they're just clubs. Clubs of people who have very effectively fooled you, at least, into thinking that somehow the country would fall apart if they weren't around to tell you how to think.

States can do whatever they like to choose their electors, and put whatever constraints they feel like on the process, SO LONG AS those constraints are clear and unprejudicial. If every private club that wants their candidate on the ballot has to meet the same vaguely reasonable criteria, you don't have a damned thing to say about it unless you live in that state.

At least, that's how it is now. I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[anotherdjohnson]

Agreed! Most people are completely confused about our government, and believe that it is a democracy. It would actually be quite difficult to have a true democracy with this many people in our country.

I'm also with you when it comes to our federal government (even state and local govt) coming in and telling us what to do. This is suppose to be a "government of the people and for the people" but it has turned into a goverment of the politicians and lobbyists for the politician, lobbyists and those who pay the lobbyists.

As someone one said, "I love my country, but I fear the government."

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[K'Lyre]

There's no constitutional right to vote in federal elections. Nice try.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[mrchaotica]

IANAL, but I think Obama and McCain could raise a pretty valid constitutional challenge to it that might end up creating a national guideline for ballot deadlines, imposing yet another federal regulation.

You sure aren't a lawyer, because the Constitution says that the state legislatures can essentially do whatever the fuck they want.

• If the state legislature decides it wants to let the citizens of the state vote for its electors, that's fine.
• If the state legislature decides to create the ballot for that vote a fucking decade in advance, that's fine.
• If the state legislature decides to pick the electors itself, that's fine.
• If the state legislature decides to let the state's governor pick the electors, that's fine.
• If the state legislature decides to let a bum on the street pick the electors, that's fine.
• If the state legislature decides to pick the electors via names pulled out of a hat, that's fine!

Do you get the picture?

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[tm2b]

It ain't so simple. Ever heard of Bush v. Gore (and the Equal Protection Clause)?

The US Supreme Court stepped in and told the state of Florida how it could choose its electors, because it found that the way the Florida Supreme Court interpreted Florida Law regarding how votes were to be counted violated the EPC.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[Tyger]

Except that it IS a state election. What, you thought your vote was going straight to the presidential candidate?

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[drsquare]

What if Florida or Ohio decided to pass a law saying that the name of the official major party nominees had to be submitted 180 days before the election?

Then if John McCain or Barack Obama want to stand for election in those states, they can submit their names 180 days before the election. Whether they get their party's nomination afterwards is no-one's concern but their own.

Anyway, who says a party has to nominate the same candidate in every state?

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[ultraexactzz]

And, in some cases, that's precisely what they do for ties and whatnot. There is a city in Nevada that decides a tied election with a hand of 5-card Stud poker, highest hand wins.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[gv250]

if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine their own state's deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

There, fixed that for you.

The Texas law has absolutely nothing to do with national parties' timetables. It has everything to do with Texas parties' timetables.

The Texas GOP had a choice to make: urge the national GOP to name the candidate earlier (by moving the convention, e.g.); certify a candidate before the national GOP did; or not certify a candidate. What the Texas GOP must not do is flaunt the law, simply because their members happen to be charged with enforcing it.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[AK Marc]

I'll bet just about anything that if Barr did somehow prevail here, the ultimate result would actually be another small death for states' rights, one way or another.

If he loses, then states rights are diminished by that result. If he wins, then states rights are asserted (which you then imply will be changed to further reduce states rights). Either way, the net effect is what it has been for the last 200+ years. Every year the feds are stronger and the states are weaker. The only way to fight that is to have two states agree on anything, and that will never happen. The states gave up long ago, and won't fight the fight, and even if they chose to, getting states in line is like herding cats.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[Catiline]

What possible legal grounds could a political party - a private organization - have for forcing a state to do anything?

How about simply because the law says so.

America was founded on the principal that no man lives above the law; that every man lives under the same rules. If this is to be more than just hot air or pretty words, it actually has to be upheld by the courts. Nobody, not even the people in office and seats of power, should be exempt from the law -- otherwise our country is no different from any tin-pot dictatorship, where the laws are applied or ignored on a whim.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[gamanimatron]

I think you missed my counterpoint. The GP stated, in part:

but if Texas was forced to remove the major party candidates from the ballot, it would be like saying that any state, at a whim, could determine a national nomination deadline by setting a ballot deadline.

Last I heard, political parties were required to adhere to state law. He's arguing, instead, that states should be required to conform to convention schedules - implying that the "major parties" are actually the font from which election law springs. While this is true in practice, it's not yet enshrined in our Constitution.

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[The AtomicPunk]

... and yet McCain and Obama's teams work very hard to use these kinds of ballot access laws against the Libertarian and Green parties. Why is that okay?

Re:Silly Rabbit...

[mattwarden]

Uhhh no way. The states have every right to make such laws. It is the PARTY which must make sure their procedures fit the STATE, not the other way around. The Parties have enough power as it is. Don't give them more.

Re:Hahaha!

[aldousd666]

well I suppose being reasonable about it you have to consider the folks who are swayed by looks, but surely you aren't! (I'm another ex-republican who leans strongly libertarian as well.)

Re:Hahaha!

[Nefarious Wheel]

Personally I would prefer writing in "None of the Above"

Re: electoral college

[carlivar]

I am also in favor of Texas seceding, so I can move there. Provided Ron Paul is their president, of course.

Re: electoral college

[Goldsmith]

And if the electoral college was removed, would this change? The 6 or states would be different, but there would still only be a few states in which each candidate would campaign.

You don't have a constitutional right to vote for the president. The states do have a constitutional right to pick electors for the president. Where are you getting these "rights of voters" in a presidential election? Such rights only exist due to the actions of the individual states.

Certainly the process could be improved, but I think the idea should be to develop a more intelligent voting system, not one even more geared toward mob rule.

Re: electoral college

[drachenstern]

Can you talk about 250 million others into thinking the same as you? If you can just convince them to pass a little bit of legislation making it an official right of ours, I'll help lead the charge for us to separate. I think it would be in our best interest, especially if we can gain most favored nation status pending our departure. I'll then propose that we conquer your so called Mexico by force, as the Union forces once did, but we won't give it back. Then we'll be able to sell you oil at open market prices and profit like mad.

Mad I tell you, MAD!!!!!

Bwah hah ha ha ha!

But seriously, only about 250 Million others should swing the vote enough. Start canvassing. I'll start arming our populace. Oh look, I'm nearly done. Your move.

Re: electoral college

[Creepy Crawler]

I thought some states, like Florida, made it a crime for electoral college voters to do other than the voting majority.

Re:Hahaha!

[megamerican]

That's exactly what elections used to be like. You'd come in with a piece of paper, write down your candidate, put it in a box in the middle of the room and leave.

Now we have the 2 party system where the 2 parties do everything in their power to block 3rd party candidates from getting onto the ballot and in debates. That's how we came to get pre-printed ballots and the need for signatures and/or money to be on it (depending on the state).

Obama actually "won" his first race in 1996 by getting enough signatures scrubbed off of his opponents ballot initiative.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Russ Nelson]

I think he's trying to get votes. Isn't that what you do when you're running for office?

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Mc_Anthony]

"I think he's trying to get votes. Isn't that what you do when you're running for office?"

Not when you are running as a third party. It's *never* about winning when you are running as a third party.

Hahahahahaha!

[Jane Q. Public]

A publicity stunt? Hahahahaha.

I don't think I really have to say anything more. The law is right there on the 'net.

Nope!

[Jane Q. Public]

There are some federal guidelines, but in general states have the Constitutional power to decide how they are going to manage the vote. This is completely legitimate.

Re:Hahaha!

[Neoprofin]

Just because someone is an activist doesn't mean they're intelligent or well informed.

It just means they have strong opinions, and I have plenty of those about things I haven't even heard of yet.

Re: electoral college

[Fluffeh]

Maybe he is one of the people you guys refer to as "You Aussies", or one of those British folks. Them and us and our whacky spelling. I mean, we should be telling the English how to spell in English right?

Re:Personally...

[Cassius Corodes]

Yes, because strong decentralised power has ever been the protector of human rights.

Re: electoral college

[eldepeche]

The current system is worse than mob rule. Why do we have huge subsidies on corn and soy? Iowa is a swing state. Why did we bail out American auto makers in the 70's? Michigan is a swing state. Why do we have steel tariffs? Pennsylvania is a swing state. Why do we have sugar tariffs? Florida is a swing state. Maybe we would have some kind of national urban/metropolitan policy on land use or transportation if anyone cared what people in California or greater New York thought about anything.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Russ Nelson]

Tell that to the Whigs.

Re:Hahaha!

[mrchaotica]

I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican...

That's funny, so is Bob Barr. He was Republican until him and John Linder got gerrymandered into competing for the same district (causing Barr to lose his seat in the Georgia House, and apparently decide to run for President instead).

Spell check?

[martyb]

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.(emphasis added)

That could be quite interesting! Here are my predictions on the names of some of the write-in candidates:

• Barrack Obama
• Barak Obama
• Bareack Obama
• Barack O'bama
• Barack Omama
• Barack O. Bama
• John McKain
• John MacCain
• Jon McCain
• Johann McCain
• John McCane
• John Mack Cain

As not even one of the above is the name of a candidate, all Bob Barr needs is for more people to be able to spell his name correctly than they could the other candidates.

For a prank, Bob Barr could have a few people at each polling place who carried signs encouraging people to vote for the above, misspelled candidates. That couldn't possibly work. Could it?

Re:Spell check?

[candover]

That couldn't possibly work. Could it?

Nope. If the spelling is close enough that it's obvious who was intended, it counts. Even if it's not entirely flattering.

Re:Spell check?

[calmofthestorm]

Ron Paul!

Re:Spell check?

[merlinokos]

I think you're grossly underestimating the power of the Die Hard movies, particularly when combined with a populace that's more concerned with entertainment than politics. John McClane for president!

Re:Spell check?

[ignavus]

You left out:

The Chick with the glasses

Re:Spell check?

[Supercrunch]

This is all part of a grand scheme to elect Jonathan Cain, keyboardist with Journey. DON'T STOP BELIEVIN' -- CAIN IN '08!

Re:Spell check?

[ShakaUVM]

I'm definitely voting for the Osama Hussein / Joe Bin Laden ticket in '08!

Re:Spell check?

[sanosuke001]

You forgot Black Osama

Re:Spell check?

[Insightfill]

Meaning as long as intent can be determined the vote is valid.

Your quote and reference are valid, but...

Oooh!! Intent again!! I seem to remember quite a few questions about intent in 2000 in Florida. Did they really intend to vote for Buchanan? Did they voter intend to vote for Gore, but didn't push hard enough to break the chad? 2004 was even worse in Ohio, when voters waited for seven hours in some districts, but their intent to even vote was fuzzier. Perhaps they were really waiting to get the cool "I voted today!" stickers.

Color me cynical, but when four years of presidential control on the line, something tells me that party shills (of ALL parties) in Texas will push the envelope of "intent" in all directions.

Re:Spell check?

[Sloppy]

all Bob Barr needs is for more people to be able to spell his name correctly than they could the other candidates.

"Curses! I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for the extra 'r' in my name!"

Re:Spell check?

[mrjimorg]

In other news, Barack Obama has officially changed his name to "I Can", making it easier for his constituents to vote for him

Re:Spell check?

[calmofthestorm]

The insightful is that his name is easy to spell. I strongly disagree with him on pretty much everything short of disapproval of the patriot act.

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

What the frack does states' rights have to do with the electoral college?

Electors for each state were originally intended to be chosen by the state legislature, not the citizens of the state. This would have given the state government additional power over the Federal government. Choosing of electors by the people, along with direct election of Senators (the 17th Amendment) represent a lamentable erosion of Federalism, and resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.

Take them the heck off the ballot.

[taliesin1077]

Actually, Barr is having to fight in a couple states for ballot access, despite having made the requisite number of signatures by the deadline specified by the states. Connecticut might be one? I'm pretty sure Virginia is as well. However, the Dems and the Reps, despite having missed the timeline, (and I've seen copies of the paperwork...they missed it) are granted ballot access carte blanche.

Re:Take them the heck off the ballot.

[Progoth]

And don't forget McCain's efforts to remove him from the PA ballot. They lost the first round, but just appealed. McCain is a true maverick patriot!

Re:Take them the heck off the ballot.

[taliesin1077]

PA was definitely one of the states I was thinking of. West Virginia was the other. I was WAY off... And yes. McCain is SUCH a patriot. He's just trying to prevent anyone who might want to vote for someone other than him from making that truly regrettable mistake...

Re:Take them the heck off the ballot.

[JAlexoi]

Hey, hey, hey.... Two party system! Could there be any other scenario? It's like a single mother party split in 2 :) I mean the USSR Communist party had more diversity than those guys.

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

Maybe so, but Florida got to decide that for itself; it wasn't imposed by the Federal government.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[taliesin1077]

I don't doubt that Barr and his supporters would like to see their names in the press. This is a bad thing, how? Let me ask you this...how often have you seen Sarah Palin's name in the press? I don't think, however, that it's the only reason for filing this suit. Barr is fighting some real battles in other states to get his name on the ballot when he followed the rules. This is one place where he can show how biased the current attitude toward the the two main parties.

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

Provided Ron Paul is their president, of course.

What does Ron Paul have to do with anything? Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate, you know.

Better to just make it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to just make it the top two, it's similar and eliminates unnecessary choices for people to just throw their vote away on...

Re:Great for ...

[A non-mouse Coward]

Actually, if neither the GOP or the Dems are on the ticket, and Bob Barr is (and he wins because there's nothing left to choose from), that's great for third parties in general. It will get publicity to the other people out there that there are more choices than "red" or "blue" (violet?).

It's not like it will totally throw the election, there are still 49 other states to win (and the crypto hocus pocus numerology we call the electoral college). Either Obama or McCain will still be elected, but maybe we might just have a significant amount of folks who stand up and say "hey, I have at least one more option here".

That just might keep both parties more honest.

Re: electoral college

[taliesin1077]

Amen to that. Though I was not enamored of his "press conference" where he basically encouraged us to do what we had already planned on doing: voting third party.

Re: electoral college

[dynamo52]

and before the grammar nazis attack, I see the missing apostrophe.

Re:Hahaha!

[Chessucat]

Just write in "nolo contendre", or vote for "Little Bobby Tables"!

Re: electoral college

[dynamo52]

I thought some states, like Florida, made it a crime for electoral college voters to do other than the voting majority.

Maybe so, but Florida got to decide that for itself; it wasn't imposed by the Federal government.

Additionally, should a Florida elector violate that law, their (unlawful) ballot would still be valid.

Re:Hahaha!

[Firehed]

Not really, this is more like being a few minutes late for a meeting discussion a promotion. Also bad, but quite a bit less dangerous.

I'd still like to see the suit go through. If these guys can't be trusted to even follow the rules in the election, I'd rather not think about the shenanigans that'll take place once one of them gets the top job.

Damn it, Parker!

[CaptSaltyJack]

Anyone ever notice Bob Barr has a striking resemblance to J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man?

Re:Damn it, Parker!

[Orion Blastar]

Actually J. Jonah Jameson was based loosely on Stan Lee and the Daily Burgle on the Marvel Bullpen, but Barr looks more like Stan Lee than JJJ. Stan Lee gave JJJ a Hitler mustache and a flat-top so he wouldn't look like himself. Barr has a mustache like Stan Lee and not JJJ, and no flat top, but hair like Stan Lee.

Re: electoral college

[Firehed]

As compared to the rights of the people living in those states? It seems to do nothing except move the power UP the chain rather than down it towards us, the citizens, which seems rather fundamentally incompatible with our whole theoretical "power to the people" America thing.

Re:Is that the only way?

[chromatic]

If he can't win on his own merit, and has to sue the system because of an unimportant deadline issue, then why does he deserve my vote?

Contrariwise, if major party candidates can't find the time or motivation to follow election laws, why do they deserve your vote?

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[starfliz]

He already has ballot access.. they others didn't follow the rules they set up. So it is a publicity stunt when the two main parties kick out third parties for not following the rules?.. its happened.

Re:Personally...

[Uberbah]

Ask a black person who lived in the South in the 60's.

Re: electoral college

[Zardus]

I had to read that post *four* times to catch it, but hey, you have a missing apostrophe!

Re: electoral college

[roystgnr]

If there is some important goal that this accomplishes, I would love to hear it.

It's a historical relic, back from when "The United States" was a phrase that could be understood by parsing the meaning of each individual word, rather than just a catchy title. People were afraid that block voting in large states would be unfair to citizens of small states.

The mechanics of communicating votes had nothing to do with it (it's not hard to send "N of our voters vote for X" instead of "N of our electors vote for X"); the mechanics of communicating culture is what has changed. There was once a time when it would have seemed ridiculous that rural New York voters would feel more closely tied to rural South Carolina voters than to urban New York voters, but here we are.

The current value of the electoral college is nil, except that it allows those of us in non-swing states to cast third party votes without worrying about throwing our votes away. But it might have some future value: Do you think that plurality voting is a great idea? I hope not. (What was I just saying about throwing our votes away?) But it's an idea that can probably be more easily fixed from the bottom up, so long as states are free to change their voting system without getting the approval of the entire country first.

Const'l amend not needed for all federal elections

[s2k2vidguy]

one set of laws that covers how federal elections should be run

That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. For no good reason.

Not exactly. For presidential elections, yes, because the Electoral College is implicated. But for other federal elections, no. See Art. I, sec. 4, cl. 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (emphasis added).

Congress has the power of preemption of state laws on elections to Congress. But to implement uniform rules for presidential elections, yes, the Constitution would need to be amended.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[zoogies]

Hm, holding people accountable for rules without considering who they are or how powerful they are. Man, what an asshole.

You bring up an interesting analogy, but with a problem: if you miss the tax filing deadline, you are subject to penalties. Those are the rules, and it's well known.

I don't know the specifics of the election rules, but I suspect the stipulation is that if you miss the filing deadline, you won't get on the ballot. And not that if you miss the filing deadline, you'll get a fine.

Is that reasonable? Is that even true? I don't know. But seriously, bending rules out of convenience or _perceived_necessity? you're kidding, right?

Re:Hahaha!

[davolfman]

Potentially illegal. Might be considered a literacy test.

Re:Is that the only way?

[zoogies]

Maybe he doesn't deserve your vote. You might not even agree with his Libertarian Party platform. But it's not about him; it's about the Big Party guys.

Does whether or not this Barr guy (I know nothing about him) would be a good president affect whether or not the two powerful parties in the US should be held accountable? I think that's the point.

And seriously, third parties have it kind of bad here. They have trouble getting on the ballot in all states, and I'm not surprised that they'd pull out all the stops to improve their situation.

Personally, I don't like it this two-party dominance a whole lot. Their collective monopoly of power is a little scary.

See the 14th and 15th amendments

[roystgnr]

You're mostly right in principle (flipping a coin to decide the president: fine), but there is now an exception regarding disenfranchisement of voters. The Fifteenth Amendment is quite clear that you can't let a subset of your citizens vote based on race/color, and along with the Fourteenth's "equal protection clause" has been interpreted to mean that you can't give a subset of your state's citizens more effective votes based on geography.

Ironic, that last bit, since the primary effect of the electoral college today is to give a subset of our nation's citizens much more effective votes based on whether or not they're in a swing state...

Re:Is that the only way?

[DavidD_CA]

I believe the issue here was that the major parties hadn't yet decided who their candidate was going to be, and that Texas has an unusually early filing requirment compared to most of the other states.

There's plenty of things to fault the candidates for, but I don't think this is one of them.

Why each state can't have the exact same filing date is beyond me.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

[roystgnr]

This mathematician is used to the word "if" having only a subset of the meaning of the phrase "if and only if", and interpreting that statute with the former meaning but not the latter would mean that Barr doesn't have a case.

But clearly law doesn't translate into English quite as clearly as I'm used to (can I assume that semicolon after 192.031.2 means "and"?), so it would be nice to hear from someone who speaks the lingo.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[Xtravar]

And how is it fair that the other parties did the same to Barr in other states?

And how will it fuck up the election? You need a majority of electoral votes, not 270. The math changes when more than two candidates get electoral votes.

Re:Hahaha!

[4D6963]

Which reminds me, how many bubbles in a bar of soap?

Re:Is that the only way?

[DavidD_CA]

I agree. I can't stand the two-party system we have here (let's face it).

But that's not a reason to sue the two candidates and prevent them from running. Nor is that they were "late" on a deadline that seems to me to be way too early (when compared with the rest of the country).

Like I said earlier, we have lots of reasons not to vote for the two major candiates (and their parties)... but this shouldn't be one of them.

Re: electoral college

[linhares]

perhaps because of "we the people", not "we the states"?

Re: electoral college

[bennomatic]

For extra credit, does the apostrophe go before or after the s? And where might one put an extra comma in for greater readability?

Re:Hahaha!

[billcopc]

I like the idea of an idiot test to keep the uninformed out of the ballot booths, but I can't think of any ways to do it that wouldn't cause more problems than it solves.

Idiot test: What do you get if you multiply six by nine ?

How many reps do you know who are H2G2 fans ? Problem solved.

Re: electoral college

[Miamicanes]

> Please inform me if you think that I'm mistaken, and there is some important cause being served by each person in Ohio
> having a vote as powerful as ten thousand people in New York or Alabama. If there is some important goal that this accomplishes,
> I would love to hear it.

Among other things, it's one of the reasons the United States was able to get the original state governments to approve its establishment in the first place. Small states like Connecticut, Vermont, and Maryland would have NEVER voluntarily relinquished sovereignty to a federal government that rendered them more or less irrelevant and moot. It was the Great Compromise, balancing the interests of small/sparsely-populated states against big/populous states.

The fact that candidates have to win an absolute 50%+1 majority (rather than a mere first past the post plurality), and have to win a majority of STATES rather than individual voters, is part of the reason why our federal government can't screw people who don't live in New York or Los Angeles the way Britain's elected officials seem to do on a regular basis to just about everyone who doesn't live in London. In the US, presidential candidates need to win lots of votes spread across a geographically huge area, and there are VERY few states that any candidate can afford to completely write off or take for granted.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[TexVex]

you're kidding, right?

No, I'm not. I read the indicated section of code as follows: If your party files by the indicated deadline and meets all other requirements, the state must include your candidate's name on the ballot. That's what is meant by "entitled", which is a key word in the law as written.

It doesn't say squat about late filing. By missing the deadline, they missed the state's guarantee of their names appearing on the ballots. But failing to obtain that guarantee does not somehow imply that the state must prevent their names from appearing on the ballot. Lack of a guarantee is not a guarantee of the opposite thing. I'd expect that election officials can and will include the D and R candidates on the ticket, because there is no legal reason why they shouldn't!

Of course, it's possible that they could exclude them if they wanted to, because of the missed the deadline, but who would want to throw a monkey wrench that huge into the election process?

So Barr's making a mountain out of this molehill just makes Barr and Libertarians look bad.

Mountain out of a molehill. That was the point of my previous post. Tryin' to keep it real.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[zoogies]

Ah, OK. You make a very important clarification. Thanks for informing me - as noted, I didn't know anything about the specifics of the code.

If so then, it does indeed seem like this actually is not such a big deal, or at least, not in the way it is presented by Mr. Barr.

Re:Hahaha!

[QuasiEvil]

My above comment was largely meant to be funny. I vote based on principles and will likely vote Libertarian, largely because I view both mainstream candidates as standing for (and, in many cases, enthusiastically promoting) bigger, more invasive government. That doesn't stop me from thinking he's a rather odd lookin' dude.

Interesting opportunity for the dems

[Urkki]

If Obama is almost certain to lose Texas, how about he admits the error and doesn't run in Texas at all? So it would be McCain versus Barr. A lot of McCain voters might not bother to vote 'cos they're sure to win, while some Dems just might go vote for Barr, just to oppose McCain. So Barr might have a remote chance of winning against McCain in that case, due to low voter turn-out.

But the main point for dems would be, that if McCain then wins the entire election by small margin and becomes the president, he would arguably again be a republican president who got elected illegally... That might give some nice political ammunition for the next 4 years.

I mean, if Barak is sure to lose Texas anyway, what do they have to lose?

Re:Interesting opportunity for the dems

[kaos07]

That might set an interesting precedent. Obama doesn't even bother campaigning in seats he knows he's going to lose, like Texas, and McCain gives up California and New York. They both just focus on swings. Which is pretty much what they do now, but it doesn't really cost them that much to put their name on the ballot even if they're most likely going to lose.

Re:Interesting opportunity for the dems

[Geminii]

a republican president who got elected illegally... That might give some nice political ammunition for the next 4 years.

Because that worked so well the last two times!

Re: electoral college

[Tycho]

I am not in favor of letting Texas secede. I would rather see Texas ejected from the union.

Re: electoral college

[dynamo52]

Fair enough. I can answer both but I will save that honor for somebody else. The one other thing I am glad to catch before anybody else however is my use of the word non-heterogeneous when I should have said non-homogeneous.

Re: electoral college

[bennomatic]

Touche!

To be fair though

[Moraelin]

To be fair, though, everybody does that kind of thing even without having that kind of an electoral process. I do realize that in America it is tainted by pork-barrel fights for one's state, instead of looking at the big picture, but the actions you've listed aren't unique to that process.

E.g., AFAIK, agriculture is subsidized in Europe too. The funny thing is that after the Great Depression, agriculture isn't profitable any more. Everyone can produce vastly more than anyone needs, and when that happens to supply and demand, prices go into a nose dive. No farmer can make a decent living out of that. So we all subsidize it because it's the kind of thing that's too strategic to let go. Plus, I guess some electoral concerns after all, because very few people can wrap their mind around, basically, "let's let agriculture die, we don't need food any more" ;)

This is about to change as more and more arable land is needed for ethanol and biodiesel for fuels, but that's what we have at the moment.

E.g., tariffs aren't that USA-only either. We used to have tariffs on game consoles in Europe, and the elder gods know we didn't even have a local equivalent of Nintendo to protect from the Japanese one. But at any rate, that's what everyone does: try to protect their local industry from being bankrupted by the foreigners. Steel is, or used to be, a rather strategic industry too, because if a war breaks out, you don't want to depend only on steel from China for your tanks.

The same applies to agriculture too, like sugar in your example. If you're going to subsidize agriculture in the first place, you might as well have at least some of it be indirect via tariffs.

It's not a new thing either. See the Corn Laws in England in the 19'th century, for example. That's what it was all about: protecting local producers from the foreigners. And it got repelled only when someone figured out they can boost their industry instead by repelling them. (The whole trend in the 19'th and early 20'th century was to demand more and more work for less and less pay. At some point it looked like approaching rock bottom, and some industrialists figured they could maybe pay even less in wages if the price of bread goes down. Hence, allowing foreign grain to come in, even if it bankrupts the landowners. Funnily though it didn't work as planned.)

Re:To be fair though

[eldepeche]

If we really need more ethanol fuel, then we ought to repeal the tariff on Brazilian cane ethanol, which is much more energy efficient than American corn ethanol. (Or French or German or British, for that matter.)

Re:Not necessarily

[calmofthestorm]

Agreed as fact, though with a bitter, bitter thought to how disgusting the system is.

Parties make me sick. Thank the Intelligent Designer that in Michigan you don't have to register to vote in a primary*/election.

*Of course your vote won't count;) Thank you very much [R|D]NC/Michigan Congress.

Re:Hahaha!

[calmofthestorm]

troll? the guy has a point. But...the democrats did it too, and last I checked you can't get arrested for being Libertarian, you have to peacefully protest (or be expected of Futurecrime at) one of the national conventions for that.

Re:Personally...

[chris_mahan]

There's no such thing as strong decentralized power. Strong power denotes that there is a rating of power, with some power being weak, and other power being strong. With full decentralization, all power becomes equalized at the individual level.

Decentralization of power in companies isn't. It is simply delegated power. In a decentralized company, the power that originally rested with the CEO has been further delegated to mid- and low-level management, but the responsibility for the proper use of such power still rests with the CEO.

In the matter of the States of the United States. The power that now rests with the States were originally theirs. They did not derive such power from the Federal Government. The States have agreed to form a Union in order to pool their individual resources to more effectively deal with the rest of the world. The Federal government has, because it is a consolidation of a subset of the power of many States, become more powerful than individual States. This is needed to face externalities such as threats of war and such.

It is important for Europeans to realize this. The United States is a union of sovereign States, similarly to what is being attempted with the European Union. It should be noted that as a citizen of France and thus as a European passport holder, it
took me years of living in the United States to fully grasp the import of this distinction. I do not expect the average European citizen to understand this, such concept being so foreign to that of the centralized state.

The Soviet Union too was a federation of States. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks quickly centralized power in Moscow. This was effectively needed to combat the German invasion of 1941, but alas proved fatal to the Federation.

Is is important to note that the People's Republic of China is effectively a federation, with the Beijing government having nominal power over the provinces. Yet the provinces enjoy strong local government, and often the will of Beijing is not quite followed to the letter.

India too is essentially is a Federation of States.

Re:Hahaha!

[calmofthestorm]

RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot! RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot! RON PAUL! Apply directly to ballot!

Now available in lemon!

They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCain

[LostMyBeaver]

After all, it would accomplish the exact same thing as if they were both allowed to be left on the balled.

The biggest problem with the process today is that the electoral college tends to run state by state. This system was ok in a time when the U.S. population was made up by small groups. But these days, you don't need a majority vote to win a state and in states where you have a huge number of electoral votes and a big split of support (like Florida), it should be possible for each electoral vote to be counted instead of just submitting all electoral votes for a state for a single party.

I think that Florida and California severely fuck up the entire electoral college method of vote counting. Florida would provide a lot more votes to the democrats and california a lot more for the republicans if the system worked properly. Texas might even have 2 or 3 votes blue.

If there's on thing I think the entire world agrees upon is that the current system is illogical in a country where the means actually do exist to count votes on a finer grain then when the system was originally created.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

And a good point...

Assuming the blank/ammend thing isn't allowed in TX (I haven't seen confirmation either way), it would be nice to have seen one or both of McCain and Obama say something like "Rule of law rules... we're out, sorry guys. Next time get your communities organized a little better to support a local party that can read the rules" and move on.

Re:if you support third party candidates

[Floydius]

but libertarianism is an empty, flawed ideology anyways, so what do you expect?

it would be nice to hear some reasons to accompany heavy criticism like that.

Re: electoral college

[StrategicIrony]

The block voting in large states IS unfair to citizens of small states.

In addition, "popular vote" for federal government is a sham that results in ridiculous things like "the war on drugs", even when individual states vehemently fight those same laws.

The whole POINT of "The United States" was to unify national defense and monetary policy ONLY, while allowing each state to set its individual laws.

This is only the case in lip-service any more and I think it's a PROBLEM with out current government.

If Texas wants to ban gay marraige, it can. If California wants to allow it, it should be able to.

If California wants to allow abortion, awesome. If Georgia wants to ban it... cool.

If you don't like it, move... or travel.

I would like to move to a state with libertarian laws.

others would like to move to a state with socialized health care.

Why should these two be mutually exclusive when they're obviously both wanted by a substantial number of people, but are mutually incompatible within the same governmental structure.

That doesn't seem absurd to me...... really...

Re:Hahaha!

[Brock Ritcey]

And that is why in the Democrat primaries Obama always did great in the caucuses.

Re:This Is NOT News For Nerds!!

[houghi]

The they will probably giggle over this old news from 2005.

Turnabout is fair play

[Kaseijin]

I believe the issue here was that the major parties hadn't yet decided who their candidate was going to be, and that Texas has an unusually early filing requirment compared to most of the other states.

The issue here is that Barr is off the ballot or fighting for access in other states for the same reason.

Re:Hahaha!

[profplump]

Which, while I understand it's illegal, doesn't seem like a terrible plan to me. If you can't read you shouldn't vote, serve on a jury or in elected office, join the military, or execute civil contracts.

Of course that idea assumes we actually provide free, effective literacy training for the entire population, which we clearly don't. But I can still dream.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[StrategicIrony]

Uhm. The Whigs weren't the third party... the Republicans were.

A long time ago it was the Democrats vs the Whigs.

Suddenly those Republicans crept up and pulled the rhugs out from under the Whigs. *chuckles*

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

But Mr. Lincoln decided you can't secede, and he had the industrial capacity to back it up.

Frankly I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone *fought* over some states choosing to leave the union. I mean, Virginia is nice, but I don't think I'd whip out a gun if I was told I couldn't travel there without a passport.

Re:Personally...

[profplump]

You could make the same argument about the senate. Are you seriously suggesting that we just like NY and CA control the entire country?

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

In addition to giving the states power to choose their electors by whatever means they deem fit, it also prevents the consolidation of power in the populous states, just like the senate.

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

But everyone likes income tax, abolition, and the direct election of senators. How dare you question the "progress" those amendments codified?

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

Unless you lived outside of CA or NY. In which case you'd be lucky to hear the candidate's name before the election, because your vote would be meaningless given the concentration of population in a few states.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[StrategicIrony]

I'd have to point out that the Libertarian party has no issues with using courts for lawful lawsuits. It's not contrary too libertarian policy or ideology.

However, the libertarian party constantly fights to get its name on ballots, often unsuccessfully for not following these same rules.

I think it's BS if they get to selectively enforce these rules... Just my opinion...

Re: electoral college

[Onan]

No, plurality voting is a far larger problem than the electoral college. It does an absolutely atrocious job of representing the will of the electorate.

But the EC compounds the problem. By the time we've gotten through state caucuses and state primaries and party primaries and state quantization and the electoral college, there ends up being half a dozen layers of plurality voting all stacked atop one another. And just like stacking any other lossy algorithm, the output gets more and more distorted at every step. The result is a federal government whose behaviour bears very little resemblance to the desires of its citizens.

The ideal solution would be to address both of these at once. Switch to single direct election by Condorcet, approval voting, or a Borda count, the distorting intermediaries of parties and states would mostly be out of the picture, and the federal government would be vastly more answerable to the populace. Unfortunately, the only set of people who could enact such a change are the ones who have already mastered exploitation of the flaws of the current system, and thus have a strong incentive to not do so.

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

It's "We the People of the United States". I know that there's no one alive that remembers the pre-progressive federal government, but it really was a much different thing back then, and mis-quoting bits of documents from another era is not going to help you prove your point.

Re: electoral college

[profplump]

What do the Libertarians have to do with anything? Ron Paul is a Republican.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[StrategicIrony]

It has nothing to do with counting issues. It has to do with proportional representation.

At the time it was created, Delaware got 3 votes, Virginia got 10 votes.

However, Virginia had something like 30x the population.

What it did was give small states more representation in choosing the president.

Currently, the numbers are inflated. Wyoming still only gets 3 votes, but California gets 55.

If we deflated it back down so California got 15, then Florida would have 9 and Wyoming would still have 3 and suddenly, we would have a number more useful swing states.

Frankly, I prefer the concept of electoral college, but I think I'd almost favor state implementing a district election system, similar to senate seats, for electoral votes, allowing an even spread based on population clusters...

I DO NOT like a "popular vote". It feels too much like a big federalist government. I don't believe in an overwhelming federal goverment. I would prefer to go back more toward a coalition of independent states.

Re:if you support third party candidates

[justinlee37]

I second that. Not every idea that the Libertarian party has is on the up-and-up (abolishing the central bank, for example), but they also have many logical ones, like putting an end to the war on consensual acts between adults (drug sales, prostitution, etc.)

Re: electoral college

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What the frack ....

Fuck. The correct word is fuck. And remember to stress that fricative for best effect!

Re:if you support third party candidates

[mr_matticus]

It assumes rational self-interest, which in turn relies on intelligent, informed decisionmakers. It relies on self-regulation, which is demonstrably ineffective (there is no such thing as environmental protectionism in libertarianism).

It is the political science equivalent of "the math works, assuming a spherical, frictionless cow". It is an academic model suffering from the same impossibility of implementation as communism. It only works given flawless conditions, which is to say that it does not work.

It offers no mechanism to correct imbalances that inevitably arise in society, and it places ideological integrity ahead of pragmatic effectiveness. It cannot adapt to the conflict that "maximum personal liberty" is nonlinear and NP-complete unless you live in a single-issue society. Perhaps most vexingly, it supposes a government which protects private interests and thus has nothing resembling a check on corporate power, despite academic protests to the contrary. What is best for the individual is sometimes in conflict with what is best for society, or for the world at large and libertarianism doesn't accept that as a compelling justification. What's more, it relies on acting in long-term interests, which we have habitually not done, even in the presence of regulation, and instead of solving the free rider problem, libertarians simply deny it as a factor.

You can make strides to pull issues and legislation in a "libertarian" direction, but the libertarian ideal can never be realized. You cannot have a libertarian society.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[LostMyBeaver]

Yeh, I rambled a bit more than necessary in the post. I agree with much of what has been said, in fact, even what I disagree with, I agree with the intent behind it.

I think that instead of breaking down the districts on a state level, to do it on a federal level. In the case of Florida specifically, there exists a real issue. The state has very little native population and I strongly believe that neither candidate can possibly represent the population of the state.

Maybe for no other reason but representation, I believe that Florida should actually be broken into several smaller states. There are a large number of highly misrepresented people within the state because the state was populated almost entirely for climatic purposes. I can only imagine California is similar, but I lack the experience to speak of it.

Counting Florida as a single monsterous vote is almost criminal in itself. And somehow this issue should be corrected.

You make a point of preferring to go back to a coalition of independant states, but in reality, maybe the problem is there's not enough states. I think it's a little silly that the only way to split a state in the U.S. is through a civil war that occurs on just the right boundary. I imagine that northern California has substantially different needs and wants than southern California. I'm sure that pan handle Florida, an area heavily populated descendants of the conferderacy would prefer their representation to be seperate from the yankees up and down the souther coasts or the dominant population of hispanics of Miami.

I have no clue about Texas since I've spent little time there and what time I spent there lead me to believe the difference there is based on religion, I've been told by some of the most educated people I met there that half of texas is baptist, half of texas is methodist and the last quarter doesn't actually matter. So I couldn't imagine how to split that state up. But somehow I can't imagine Texas's representation would actually change if it were split

Re:Hahaha!

[DrXym]

Hey, this is awesome! Screw electronic voting. Screw pre-printed ballots in general! Just think -- if candidates were forced to rely on a write-in only process, voting participation would drop like a stone because the average American couldn't be bothered. Only the activists would show up, and the polls wouldn't be tainted by idiots who know nothing other than the contents of TV ads.

The problem of course is that activists are often blinded by a single issue and therefore vote more stupidly than the general public. They vote on an issue (e.g abortion), not necessarily for a candidate's experience or overall policies.

I would favour mandatory voting accompanied by a weighting score. Everyone gets a vote but the ballot is accompanied by 5 non-partisan muliple choice questions randomly drawn from 20 or so. The weight of your vote depends on your score. It naturally favours well informed voters and diminishes the effect of ignorant / stupid ones.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[StrategicIrony]

Well, other than states like Delaware and Connecticut and Rhode Island, very few states DONT have this huge diversity of populations.

The Mexicans on the south border of Texas vote quite differently from the liberal college students in Austin who vote quite differently (overwhelmingly liberal) from suburban mothers in Dallas (social conservative) who are also different from the cowboys on the panhandle plains.

Then again, The city folks in Overland Park, and Kansas City, Kansas have different needs from the farmers in the rest of the state. Even the farmers in the relatively moist eastern part of Kansas have very different desires from the farmers in the very aarid western Kansas plains.... on some issues anyway.

The people in Minneapolis vote vastly differently than almost everyone further north in that state. The countryside dairy farms in Wisconsin are quite different from the "big" cities of Green Bay and Milwaukee, which are basically satellites of Chicago.

I travel a lot and I could do sort of relative comparison across almost every state, so until you shrink states down to senate-district sized chunks, I think you'll run into that consistently.

Which.... leads right back to why I proposed senate-district sized chunks. :-)

Just like the rich folks on Miami Beach would vote far differently than the Cubans in north-west Miami, or the folks in Manhattan might vote differently than the folks on Long Island, if given the choice.

meh. We have the same idea and equally impractical solutions.

We rock. :-)

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[stinerman]

I'm a registered Know-Nothing, you insensitive clod!

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[erroneus]

To be clear on this "publicity stunt" implies something that it isn't -- that this is just an attempt to garner some sort of public attention for some childish purpose.

In fact, just as in the case of Kucinich, this is about public awareness by the only means by which the public has any real access -- the press. The fact that we have the press is no accident. Freedom of the press is here by design. It is unfortunate that it wasn't foreseen that the press would all be bought up by a rather limited number of people and use it to push their views and agendas. But even as twisted as it is, it is still a useful institution for a democratic republic, struggling as it may be, to have available.

The Libertarian party grows with each election cycle. The two big parties are trying to keep even the knowledge its existence suppressed as much as possible. The press, of course, doesn't help this much when they exclude them from debates and statistical reporting of the facts. (Isn't it publishing false or intentionally inaccurate information an actionable offence when they take any results associated with other parties and assign them to the two biggest parties so that their two numbers conveniently add up to 100%? The practice is despicable, manipulative and distorting of the facts they are charged with reporting.)

Further, the Libertarian party is using the same tool of repression that has been used against them for a very long time -- election law. If we even PRETEND to have a fair and unbiased legal system, this has to be admitted and acted upon properly. Otherwise, it's time we all start to admit that our system is very tainted, distorted and is a complete sham against the public.

With all other things being controlled by the big two, the press is the only vehicle remaining when it comes to getting the word out. Is the purpose of the action to gain public attention? Very likely. But it is more than that as well. It is a demand for equality under the law; a demand that all operate under the same laws for better or worse; a demand that law not be enabled to favor one [or two] party over others regardless of their majority status. There could be nothing more American. Whites only? Men only? The fight for equality under the law is more than a racist or a sexist issue -- it is about all forms of minority having equal treatment and access to government.

Re: electoral college

[Tyger]

As opposed to now where if you live in CA or NY (Or Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Nevada, Wyoming, Maryland, Kansas, etc etc etc) the candidates pretty much count on the foregone conclusion that your state will (Or will not) vote for them?

Re:Send them all

[meringuoid]

Wow, all the pot I can steal as a worker paid by my job almost as much as the minimum I need to survive? Sign me up!

Look, you wouldn't live there. Not unless you're a millionaire in tax exile. Nobody wants to be the workers in the libertarian paradise. You'd only go there to buy your weed, and you'd host your pirate FTP servers there.

Re:It's a publicity stunt.

[Tyger]

From other comments, I gather he followed the rules in other states and was denied ballot access, or still had to fight for it, and the D and Rs didn't follow the rules in Texas and still get ballot access. From that point of view, it could very well be making a statement, just on a larger scale than Texas.

Re:Personally...

[drsquare]

Yes, because strong centralized power has ever been the protector of human rights.

Civil Rights Act.

Re: electoral college

[icebrain]

Exactly. I'm tired of seeing the people in the "big cities" of various states thinking they know what's best for everyone and trying to set policy for the rest of the state. They want everyone to live just like they do in the city... which I'll pass on, thanks.

Re: electoral college

[Goldsmith]

I don't know that you're mistaken. I think the electoral college was one of those purposeful deviations from pure democracy, but there are no founding fathers around right now for us to ask. You answered my question. I don't think you're crazy, I just happen to disagree.

Re: electoral college

[nw15062]

I don't understand why what you said is so hard for people to understand. I think the framework for equal rights all men( and women and transgender and whatever) are born equal should be included into the very heart of the constitution. And then let the states choose there own path. By diversifying American politics and laws among states we can see what works and does not work faster. Evolution in numbers. I don't want a national healthcare, I want a state healthcare and when I travel and get a medical bill they can send it to my state to cover, in which case my taxes would have paid for.

It might be nice if they counted the votes, too...

[mikelieman]

Yeah, as long as we're dreaming let's go all-out and dream that they actually count the votes and it wasn't just some Political-Entertainment production.

Barr has been mistreated

[Orion Blastar]

so why should McCain and Obama break the rules and get away with it? If they are late for the ballot, take them off. Rules are rules.

Barr was mistreated as not let into Saddleback Church to answer questions and he won't be part of the Presidential debates either. Also he might not be allowed on the ballot in some states even if he filed before the deadline.

Bob Barr's web site to let people know he is running under the Libertarian ticket after getting sick of what the Republicans had done under Bush. So he quit the Republicans and joined the Libertarians and are now calling both the Republicans and Democrats on their dirty tricks and rule breaking.

Meet filing deadlines instead of slinging FUD?

[macraig]

It seems to me that both campaigns (McCain and Obama), judging from the daily barrage of FactCheck reports, are spending so much time slinging FUD at each other and the public that it's a miracle they have enough spare time to make any filing deadlines at all. THey should certainly be made to pay a price for their foolishly misplaced focus.

Perhaps we could just skip the election and lock them both in a cavern with a big warm geothermal mud pit?

Re: electoral college

[linhares]

Misquoting? You completed exactly what I said. People first.

Re: electoral college

[east coast]

Just FYI: As a rust belt resident who lives one mile from one of the largest and most profitable steel mills left in the entire state of Pennsylvania (if not the country)... We pretty much nailed the lid on the coffin of the American steel industry about 25 years ago and there isn't a steel man in the area who doesn't realize the steel tariff is a bad joke, if not an insult to their industry.

I wish him luck.

[Steauengeglase]

3rd party candidates and write-in (yes, I said write-ins) are constantly thrown out over stuff like this. I'd love to see a little role-reversal on this subject.

Re:I wish him luck.

[Teancum]

It would be interesting to see what votes would be given for write-in candidates.

Even more interesting: What would happen if this became a write-in campaign and the votes for President and Vice-President went to different parties: I.E. a majority of Texans voting for Obama for Pres and Palin for VP? This happening because a number of voters don't even bother writing in the VP name, and those that do write the VP candidate down end up winning by default?

This could be a fun election on a number of fronts, and it would be an amazing election if this were to happen.

You describe approval voting

[tepples]

What would you suggest as a replacement ?

A big ol' yes/no for each candidate ? Tally them up, and whoever gets the most "Yes" answers wins ?

I'd approve that system. I'd say it's even easier to understand and harder to game than STV/IRV.

Re: electoral college

[Junior J. Junior III]

Why do we have X? Because Y is a swing state

Basically, you make the argument that because people vote, those they elect must be responsive to their wants and needs. Isn't that kindof the point?

happened in 2004 too

[downix]

Bush failed to file on time to be listed in Alabama. Technically Alabamas electorals were to be the next highest canidate, which happened to be Kerry. Oh, and lookee here, with Alabama, Kerry suddenly won 2004...

If Barr wins this, it could turn the results in prior elections into disputes as well. I wish him goddess speed! 8)

Re:Not necessarily

[bigstrat2003]

Federal elections are about choosing between Democrats or Republicans. So long as these two can get ready in time, it's all that matters. Let's keep in mind that we have a legal system here that is based on common law. US law is about reality, not books and schools.

The bottom line is that Libertarians are just not part of the democratic process in the United States. He should just shut up and choose to be Democrat or Republican.

Please stop propping up the two-party system. Thank you.

Re:Is that the only way? - We will do it.

[gabrieltss]

"Sue E.T. for blowing up our planet?"

No, we will do that fine on our own thank you...

NO

[unity100]

study some history. southern stats were already doing much trade with europe by then. AND when civil war started, they increased that. If what you did was done, it would eventually lead to further estrangement in between the n and s, and lead to s breaking away already to form its own union. a slavery union.

fuck that.

Re: electoral college

[Killjoy_NL]

Frack is the Fuck in Battlestar Galactica :)

Re:if you support third party candidates

[Carl_Stawicki]

but libertarianism is an empty, flawed ideology anyways, so what do you expect?

Would that be the same empty and flawed ideology the country was founded on in the first place? It might be entertaining for you to give an example of an ideology you don't consider empty and flawed.

Re:Not necessarily

[Cro Magnon]

He should just shut up and choose to be Democrat or Republican

Why? I assume Barr wants a smaller federal government. Why should he join the "tax us to oblivion" Dems, or the "bloat spending and fund it with pixie dust" Repubs? Neither party represents his views.

Re: electoral college

[limaxray]

Please inform me if you think that I'm mistaken, and there is some important cause being served by each person in Ohio having a vote as powerful as ten thousand people in New York or Alabama. If there is some important goal that this accomplishes, I would love to hear

The primary mistake in your logic is that the US is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. If you want democracy, you'd have to seriously change the constitution (ie burn it and start anew). I understand some people aren't happy with this, but the world isn't filled with rainbows and unicorns and that's just the way it is. Perhaps we need to work on our public education system so voters better understand how the system works and thus aren't so shocked and disenfranchised when things operate as designed.

Anyway, the reason why certain people's votes are 'worth' more than others is that it allows fair representation of the entire demographic of the US. If it were a direct democracy where everyone's vote was equal, the inner-city folk would have far more representation because the majority of votes happen to live in cities. In that world, politicians would only pander to the major cities, and instead of them focusing on a few select states, they'd only be focusing on a few select cities. I don't know where you live, but I don't want my life to be governed by laws tailored for those who live in NYC, LA, Detroit, etc. I know it's annoying to hear about some of the pork the rural minority gets, but in reality it is only a fair balance to the huge amount of pork the city interests get; a fair balance that wouldn't exist if we were a true democracy.

I agree the electoral college isn't ideal, but it's there for a reason. While eliminating it would be fair for some, it would be a lot less fair to others and would cause an even greater divide in our country. I even dare to say that elimination of the electoral college is the kind of thing that would push less populated states to recede and possibly start a civil war (loss of federal representation like this, and not slavery, is exactly what caused the last one). Basically, its just not as simple as replacing it with modern technology.

Re:Not necessarily

[drakono]

Parties make me sick.

What if they're LAN parties?

Criteria for entitlement versus requirement

[The Empiricist]

Chances are that McCain and Obama will be on Texas ballots in November. The law that Mr. Barr cites states that a "political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if" it the party gets its certification of nominees in on time ( emphasis added ).

Being entitled to a benefit based on a condition does not mean one is prohibited from receiving that benefit if the condition does not apply. A => B does not imply that B => A. If the Democrats and Republicans got their nominations submitted on time, then McCain and Obama will be on the ballots in November. That does not mean that if McCain and Obama are on the ballots in November that they got their nominations submitted on time.

Of course, A => B does imply that !B => !A. Thus, if McCain and Obama are not on the ballots in November, then the Democrats and Republicans did not get their nominations submitted on time.

Maybe there is something else in the Texas code that Mr. Barr can use in his argument. But, his reliance on this section alone is not enough to win the day.

Re:Criteria for entitlement versus requirement

[BobTheLawyer]

This is not necessarily correct - in construing laws and contracts it's often corrrect to interpret "entitled if" to mean "entitled if, only if". Well drafted laws/contracts make this explicit. I don't know enough about the specifics, or indeed anything about Texas statutory interpretation, to say what the correct result is here.

Re:Criteria for entitlement versus requirement

[The Empiricist]

Sure, the law might be smudged. Judges reinterpret laws all the time. However, most courts are unlikely to smudge a law like this in a politically unfavorable way when there is a plausible interpretation that won't generate mainstream criticism. The plausible interpretation in this case is that the law is designed to guarantee that third-party candidates have access to the ballots if they follow minimal procedure.

Take a look at the Texas Supreme Court opinion that, according to this press release, supposedly states that Texas law "does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines." The case actually allowed a candidate to get on the ballot despite filing mistakes (the quote simply limits the scope of the opinion as opposed to carving out the meaning of the statute in stone as Mr. Barr seems to claim).

The courts have a bias in construing election law to favor allowing candidates onto the ballot (thus letting voters ultimately decide the issue of electability) instead of disallowing candidates from the ballot (thus effectively taking the final decision away from voters).

Ultimately, you don't need to apply strict rules of interpretation to guess which way the Texas Supreme Court is likely going to go with this case. You just need to know what interpretations of the statute are plausible and what is most likely important to the judges.

Barr's premise is false

[PeterM from Berkeley]

I found this online:
"This came up in "Andrew's seed" last week. From that article: The August 26 deadline is for independent and third party candidates. -- Texas Election Code - Section 192.031 Since the D's and the R's nominate by convention, and those parties have each had "a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office," Texas Election Code Section 181.005 applies. Section 181.005 states: A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection (a), in each subsequent general election following a general election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes received by all candidates for that office. Both the Republicans and Democrats had candidates for statewide office in 2006 who garnered more than 5% of the vote for that office (several, actually). Therefore, both parties automatically qualify and don't have to separately qualify by submitting names arrived at by convention by any particular date. " (end quote)
This means that Barr doesn't have a leg to stand on. The whole premise of his objection is false.

Re:Barr's premise is false

[edibobb]

I suspected as much. Getting on the ballot in all 50 states is an early priority in any national election campaign. Even politicians can figure that out.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[TexVex]

I disagree with you. Either we are a nation of laws or we are NOT.

Yes, we are a nation of laws. The nice thing about that is that when something is not explicitly spelled out in the law, people have leeway to do as they see fit.

The law in this case is a contract between the state and political parties, stating that if the political parties jump through all the right hoops then the state is compelled to put the party's candidate on the ballot.

It doesn't say anything at all about what the state can or cannot do if a party fails to jump through a hoop. So that means it's up to the actual officials involved, all the way up to the Texas Secretary of State.

In this case, it means that the political parties involved have no legal recourse if their candidates' names do not appear on the ballot. They missed the deadline, so the state is not compelled to include their names on the ballot. But the state certainly is still allowed to put those names on the ballot, because the law does not forbit it.

Re: electoral college

[Dog-Cow]

If it's missing, how do you see it?

I grant that you could see where it should be, but I won't say that because I'm not a grammar Nazi.

Re: electoral college

[quacking duck]

I think that was kind of his point. How can a non US citizen validly express such an opinion of our (outdated) electoral process?

I don't know if you're agreeing with his point or simply emphasizing what it was, so I'll address the statement itself.

As the most politically influential country in the world, US elections do not simply determine the direction of your country, it directly affects the rest of the world who have no say in who gets to sit in the big chair.

Non-Americans absolutely have the right to express an opinion of a US democratic system, and it's just as valid as an American's (almost half of whom don't even bother participating in it anyway!).

Re: electoral college

[Alsee]

I see the missing apostrophe.

Wow! Freaky! That's like "I see dead people" supernatural vision like in that Sixth Sense movie!
They're like totally missing dude.... but I still see them.

I see missing apostrophes.

-

Re: electoral college

[mdfst13]

After a couple of hundred years, languages change and develop and non-heterogeneous populations' usage will diverge.

Changes like removing the u from favour or changing the re to er in calibre occurred within the first fifty years. It was a deliberate attempt to establish American spellings. See Webster's Dictionary or Noah Webster for some more discussion.

It's not clear if Webster would have been as successful in this if he had tried to preserve the more complex British spellings.

Re: electoral college

[Alsee]

resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.

Yeah, right. Because everything would be sooo much better if only we had corrupt politicians appointing even more corrupt politicians to run things.

-

mod parent to 6

[circletimessquare]

word

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[DaveV1.0]

but I think I'd almost favor state implementing a district election system, similar to senate seats, for electoral votes

I am not sure that is a good idea. Have you seen how districts are drawn?

Spoiler!

[Alsee]

Spoiler alert!

The candidate was "Shelley Sekula-Gibbs". Someone wrote in "Shelly DraculaCunt Gibs". And the election office counted that vote.

All I have to say is, there are two b's is Gibbs ya idiot!

-

Money, meet mouth

[Tenek]

All right, hotshots. If any of you really think that Bob Barr will be the only candidate on the ballot in November, then feel free to head over to intrade.com and make a killing on the "Bob Barr to get 1 or more electoral college votes" contract. Ask is $6 right now (pays $100 if he gets a vote). So this should be a great way to make tons of money in two months.

Of course, if you suspect that McCain will win the state regardless, then don't bother. Any takers?

Laws don't apply to True Patriots

[slackerdeluxe]

The Rule of Law is only for those liberal, commie lovin' turrists who hate our freedom. God fearing, flag wearing real Americans can just ignore any laws, subpoenas or statues they feel are partisan.

why does it have to be an extreme?

[circletimessquare]

i'm not going to get in a pissing match over word definitions with you. the answer is easy: moderation. communism believes in the ascendency of altruism. libertarianism believes in the ascendency of selfishness. both are fatally flawed, to an equal degree

what lies in between? call it a googlymooglyism. why? because i'm not going to pick a common word because it is probably freighted in your propagandized mind with some sort of partisan kneejerk response

but the truth is simple and clear: society must balance between the needs of the group, and the needs of the individual. any society that strays too far to the individual, or too far to the group, fails, and creates suffering

moderate between altruism and selfishness, and you have the ideal society. not that i said that was easy, its a balance, its complex and subtle. life is irreducibly complex and subtle

it is adherence to one of many fundmentalist simplistic notions, such as selfishness trumps all, as with libertarianism, that creates suffering in this world. understand that tension exists and sometimes altruism prevails while other times selfishness prevails, and that simplist fundamentalist adherence to one extreme or the other is where we are doomed

Re:Personally...

[toph42]

Yes, that's the purpose. With direct election, the more populous states would exercise the "Tyranny of the Majority" over the less populous states. The electoral college helps balance the representation of the several states.

Not how the Constitution is written, I'm afraid.

[FishAdmin]

How is it that someone can get a majority of votes and not win? Everyone's vote should be equal; having some people's vote count more than other people's vote is absurd.

You would be correct if we had a Democracy, though. In a true Democracy, every person votes, and every person's vote counts equally. However, we are a Republic in the USA; a group of people appointed to cast votes control the election outcome. Now, we happen to have a Democratic Republic, where the people casting votes are elected by the rest of us. However, your "popular vote" is actually worth nothing. It makes people feel good that they voted, and it hypothetically influences our Elected Officials to cast their votes the way we want them to. In truth, they could vote however they wanted and we couldn't do anything about it, except NOT re-elect them next term. Now, the wise Official would want to vote the same as the majority of his/her constituents, but they aren't legally bound to, by any means.

yea right

[OrangeTide]

As if either side gave a damn about the slaves. No if you can move beyond what everyone assumes went on during the Civil war and look at the real history. The writings, the events, the politics. It will paint a dramatically different (and more complex) story than the idea that it was all about slavery.

You don't need to form a massive federal government to add a no slavery clause to the constitution. (Although you do need a massive government to add a no alcohol clause and expect to enforce it)

Cartoon Civil War

[OrangeTide]

Well most people learned about the issues of the Civil War from cartoon specials designed to teach history to 8 year old children.

Re: electoral college

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If you can just convince them to pass a little bit of legislation making it an official right of ours, I'll help lead the charge for us to separate.

Good luck with that. A good chunk of my family was killed during the last time a group of states tried to secede from the union.

Not a Chance!

[turkeyfish]

No chance of this. Republicans are permitted to ignore laws, its now part of the constitution as determined by the total authority of the executive branch.

Also, as part of emergency relief act under authorization by President George Bush any republican presently in financial trouble can write to the US Federal Reserve and get an immediate bailout and pardon for any and all business losses. If you are a republican you may address your grant for the taxpayer's funds you are entitled to at:

Federal Reserve Bank
Washington, DC 20055
Attn: Karl Marx, Chairman

Re:if you support third party candidates

[ratboy666]

The Libertarians had been REMOVED from the ballot for this exact offense. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unless somehow you can tell me that (for the purposes of the election) there SHOULD be a procedural difference in the electoral process between Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians? Go ahead, try.

Note the rule: its not about the party itself; limit the discussion to the procedural.

PS. I am not a Libertarian (Socialist, if you must know). But I will defend the process.

Re:The will of the people

[hey!]

You miss one primary point. It was never the intention of our Founding Fathers that the President should be elected by the "will of the People". In fact it was their intention **not** to elect the President by the will of the People, but by a college of Educated Men

Actually I get that point. However, the process was supposed to be republican, in which the will of the people is filtered through cooler and wiser heads.

A system of selecting electors that does not reflect the will of the people or their representatives is not what they had in mind. An election in which the vast majority of voters are denied a reasonable choice is not republican government, which is guaranteed to citizens of states by the Constitution.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[Alsee]

If we deflated it back down so California got 15, then Florida would have 9 and Wyoming would still have 3 and suddenly, we would have a number more useful swing states.

Holy crap. Under the current electoral system it only takes 50% of the vote in states representing 42.4% of the population to win the presidency... meaning that 21.2% of voters could appoint a president against up to 79.8% opposition.

If you made your suggested change, by my calculations it would only take 50% of the vote across states representing 22% of the population to win the presidency. Meaning that 11% of voters could appoint a president against up to 89% opposition.

Obviously it's nearly impossible for an election to hit those mathematical limits, current real elections only reverse the overall vote by minor margins. But the current system could reverse the overall vote by a much larger margin, and a "California got 15, Wyoming still have 3" system could and would result in absolutely insane reversals of the overall vote. It is already a mess when there is a 1% or 2% reversal of the popular vote, just imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if 2/3rds or more of the population revolted against a candidate that lost the overall vote by more than 2-to-1.

I think I'd almost favor state implementing a district election system, similar to senate seats, for electoral votes, allowing an even spread based on population clusters...

Senate? I think you meant House districts?
That would be much more viable. But if we're going to change the system we seriously need a fix that cleans up the 3rd party problem. And I don't think there's any reasonably way to do that without also going to a direct popular vote system. You can't translate any 3rd party fix through any regional-vote then elector-vote-for-president two level system.

-

Keep the 13th

[OrangeTide]

Slavery was never a provision in the constitution.

You can blame the common law system for suddenly defining captured African people as property.

Today we wouldn't technically need the 13th amendment (but I'm happy to have it). Because the courts now agree that the rights spelled out in the constitution cover all men and women. Not just white men. (no where does the constitution state the laws are just for white men).

It was never legal, even before the 13th amendment, to keep a white person as a slave. The whole whites only interpretation was just some court mumbo jumbo hand waving because it was convenient to those in power.

There are some other aspects of the 13th that prevent debt servitude which seem like an improvement to me, it's not just for blacks. A modern day example would be the forcing of women to be prostitutes, using narcotics addiction and physical violence maintain their compliance would violate the 13th.

Re:Keep the 13th

[meringuoid]

To be fair to the slave owners, it was perfectly reasonable of them to interpret the intent of the founders as meaning that the rights they went on about were only for whites. I mean, if Washington et. al. intended black people to be free citizens of the new Republic, then surely they'd have begun by freeing all their own slaves?

Re:Keep the 13th

[OrangeTide]

True enough. The precedence was set long before the Civil War. Once established and accepted by the courts it takes an law to undo the damage.

And maybe they wouldn't have killed so many Indians if they thought people should be equal. But I'm willing to accept that these were different times, and I can't really carry the baggage created by people who died before my ancestors even came to America (not counting the ones who were here before the whites came). Just because my skin is white does not mean I have any responsibility for what when on centuries ago.

you're not a socialist

[circletimessquare]

the position you seem to be espousing is bureaucratic absolutism

not that it was right the libertarians were removed from the ballot, but it most certainly is wrong to think some sort of revenge of this same nature is good for anyone

Re:you're not a socialist

[ratboy666]

Laws ARE absolute. And governmental power extends from, and defines, those laws.

I do not speed -- 1 kmph or mph over the speed limit is a violation. The speeding law is an absolute. Note that the signs on the highway say "Violators WILL be prosecuted" (at least along the highway I take). The job of governments is to tend law via legislation. As a result, the scrutiny should be even more intense. Enforcement MUST be absolute in the case of the government itself breaking the law.

Nothing else can be tolerated by a democratic society.

So, yes, when it comes to the people who DESIRE to rule following the law TO THE LETTER; and especially ELECTORAL law, yes, I am absolutist.

As should everyone.

Now this is an especially egregious case -- the law seems to be SELECTIVELY enforced, and there is a possibility of selective bias being introduced.

Not revenge -- control of the democratic process upon which your country is founded.
 

Incomplete Analysis

[jdev]

It's completely revisionist to claim the war was "about" freeing slaves (though I admit that's what you'll typically be taught in school as a child here in the US).

1) Just because Lincoln didn't free all slaves, it doesn't mean that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. The abolitionist movement had started years before Lincoln came to power. South Carolina seceded days before Lincoln was elected and the Confederate states formed way before the Emancipation Proclamation. The problem was the southern states felt that abolition was inevitable under Lincoln. Yes, there were other factors at work here like the north's dominance in industry, banking and politics. But those issues ended up centralizing around slavery.

2) Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel held territories. That included Confederate states, but not slave holding states loyal to the Union like Maryland, Kentucky and Tennessee. The Emancipation Proclamation though was an executive order during war time. Lincoln stated that his war time executive powers limited what he could declare and that Congress was ultimately responsible for abolishing slavery (which they did 3 years later).

3) Even if you don't buy Lincoln's argument, most political change is typically gradual, and diplomacy can be a big part of it. If Lincoln had abolished all slavery immediately, he might have lost the support of some of the states that had stayed loyal to the Union. The war hadn't exactly gone as they had expected and they needed all the help they could get. Instead, he was able to get international support by taking a stance on slavery, pacify the abolitionists, keep the Union intact, and bought some time until Congress could act. Overall, it seems like a smart move.

Re:Incomplete Analysis

[zacronos]

I don't buy #3 -- if abolition seemed as inevitable as you claim in #1, then I really fail to see what would be gained by allowing loyal Union states to keep their slaves for the time being (since they would know it was coming sooner or later).

You make some good points in #1, but I don't quite see how those other issues centralized around slavery. Maybe I'm just missing something there.

#2 in your analysis above is the first thoroughly convincing argument I've heard. Thank you for not acting like I'm an idiot, as other responders have. I would mod you Insightful through the roof except that clearly I'm already part of this thread.

Re:the country was not founded on libertarianism

[phlinn]

keep burning those straw men.

Re:Hahaha!

[Darby]

(And I'm a strongly-libertarian-leaning ex-Republican... Can't imagine what non Libs think of this guy.)

They think he's a typical Republican: Big government loving religious extremist nutter. Can't imagine who the fuck voted for that piece of shit as a Libertarian Party candidate. I think I am going to have to actually write in Colbert since the LP totally fucked itself and its integrity on that one.

Libertarians Move To Alaska!

[turkeyfish]

Libertarians would be better off to move to Alaska, where not only will they be subsidized by taxpayers in the other 49 states, they could join Todd Palin's Alaska Secessionist Party and make a clean break. They would only need about 322,000 votes to do this.

It seems ironic that John McCaine is traveling the US with a known and admitted secessionist Todd Palin at his side. Maybe hes trying to signal that under his administration soon the rest of America is either too broke to support Alaska it will be ok for them to form their own country.

This will be especially good for his 2012 reelection campaign as they will then be able to hire a lobbyist to run his campaign and he will be able to rush to their defense and issue a press release saying that "We're all Alaskans". It will also be good for Sarah Palin, as she will then be able to claim foreign policy experience, claiming that she actually ran a foreign country.

Let me explain Texas politics to you, son...

[they_call_me_quag]

No, I don't think you will see any last minute, bi-partisan efforts to fix this. Here's why:

(1) The Texas Legislature is not in session. The governor can call a special session, which would require the legislators to return to Austin from their homes, but...

(2) The Democrats, Libertarians and Independents in the house will refuse to return for the special session because they all benefit from this. Without the non-Republicans the legislature would not have a quorum and will not be able to hold a special session. They did this a few years ago when the Republicans tried to re-district the state and it worked well enough for several weeks.

Texas is a "sure win" state for McCain, who would pick up all of the states' 34 electoral votes. If Texas is removed from play, McCain would have to win every single "toss-up" state to win with 271 votes.

In other words, if Bob Barr's suit works, McCain is screwed and Obama should start packing up his house because he's moving in January.

P.S. I live in Austin and I follow these matters closely.

Write-in attempts for Obama

[superyooser]

Write-ins for Obama by different kinds of people:

• Obama Disciples: Lord Obama Christ (blessed be He)
• Obama Disciples (Greek Orthodox): Barackus Obamus Xristos
• Obama Disciples (Jewish): the BR"O
• Muslims: [Arabic gibberish]
• Old-timers: Brakobama-ding-dong (Who put the bam in the bam O-ba-ma bam?)
• Kids: Bam-Bam (it's OK, even the dead vote for Democrats from Chicago)
• Buckwheat's Sister: Obama Otay!
• Irish: Barack O'bama
• Protest voters: Nobama
• Protest voters (Black): Yo Mama!
• Hispanics: Juan McCain ... oh wait

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[Zenaku]

You need a majority of electoral votes, not 270.

Go look up the difference between a majority and a plurality. There are 538 electors. You need 270 to have a majority of them, no matter how many people are running.

Oh Yeah?

[turkeyfish]

"The federal government was not meant to be a massive overriding force in our lives."

Try telling that to the Karl Marx, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve. Why he'll put you in so much debt you will be too numb to even mumble.

Will someone please report OrangeTide(124937) to the office of Homeland Security for Interrogation Techniques Reeducation Program and Bank Account Readjustment Therapy?

Re:Personally...

[Darby]

You could make the same argument about the senate. Are you seriously suggesting that we just like NY and CA control the entire country?

It would obviously be far superior to the current situation where shitty little welfare states who can't even pull their own weight or deal with modern reality are given incredible amounts of power over the states which actually pay the bills and use that power in order to try and force antique bronze age delusion in place of our Liberal, secular government thus dragging us all down to their pathetic level.

I mean NY, CA and the rest of the provider states pay the bills, why shouldn't they have more say what's done with their money? I'll never understand you extremist Socialists, but your sort who thinks that letting those who produce the least should have the most say in how to rob those who actually are productive are utterly insane.

Its not a Constitutional Crisis...

[midnitewolf]

Without Texas's electoral votes, it's possible that neither candidate could reach 270 electoral votes, but the Constitution specifies that the decision goes to a ballot in the House of Representatives.

Strictly speaking, its always been possible for the decision to go to the House, since winning requires a simple majority (50% + 1 vote = 270). Since there's an even number of votes (538), you could theoretically split 269-269.

At any rate, the point is that while it would be wildly out of the ordinary, it's not a constitutional crisis since article 2 section 1 accounts for it.

that's why they call it idealism

[circletimessquare]

as in, its a fantasy, an ideal, a perfection

it doesn't work in messy reality

enough said

libertarianism is actually a wonderful delightful philosophy, if you like philosophical masturbation in isolation without any concern for real world issues. but what's the point of that? libertarianism often appeals to college sophomore philosophy majors with too many books read and absolutely zero experience living in the real world. it sounds noble and electrifying. well so do comic books

so i'm sorry to rain on your idealism, but stop trying to think your fantasy life has the slightest fucking chance to work in reality. people don't BEHAVE as libertarianism needs them to do in order to work

i will repeat that: a philosophy that requires human beings to suddenly behave in ways no human being has ever behaved, in any time period, in any culture, in the entirety of history, IS NOT A VALID POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

are you unclear in any way on that obvious fucking point about libertarianism?

Re:please, people, cut the morondom

[zacronos]

the reason for the war was the southern states breaking away from the union BECAUSE they were going to abolish slavery. [...] everyone knew that after the war, existing assemblies were going to abolish slavery. it was a due process.

If the 13th Amendment (which freed slaves in the entire US) was an inevitable consequence of the Union winning the war, why was the Emancipation Proclamation worded the way it was? Were they hoping to trick the few people who didn't know that would happen? Oh wait, you said "everyone knew". So, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation free slaves in all states? Why did it give Southern states the chance to keep their slaves if they came back to the Union? Wouldn't that have been an empty offer?

Options abound.

[peacefinder]

Removing them from the ballot would only hurt McCain; Obama's not gonna win Texas anyway. Supporting Barr's suit by voluntarily withdrawing might even be a good strategy for him. (Assuming he hasn't screwed up in a similar manner elsewhere.)

But still, Texas will figure something out. It's up to the states to choose their electors and you can bet they'll not let their state go unrepresented in the electoral college. They could pass emergency legislation to choose their electors in a different way, or to ease the filing limit, or hold a special election at a different time. Ultimately this is unlikely to affect the outcome of the race.

Re:Options abound.

[hey!]

There is no way winning this way would "help" Obama, unless winning the Presidency is worth throwing the country into turmoil.

I agree, if Barr wins this, the Texas legislature had better amend the rules. They'd be better off just picking 34 McCain electors than to risk plunging the entire country into crisis.

Re:Options abound.

[Analog Penguin]

Your idea of Obama taking his name off the ballot is an interesting one, and it could certainly have some fascinating implications for the race in the fall. The only problem would be the downticket races (for Congressional seats), which the Democrats are likely to do quite well in this year. Not having Obama drawing voters in these races could significantly hurt Democratic chances in these races.

Re:Options abound.

[peacefinder]

"There is no way winning this way would "help" Obama, unless winning the Presidency is worth throwing the country into turmoil"

Well, it's irrelevant if Obama gets 270 EVs. Texans would be pissed off, but it would not be terribly relevant because he would have won outright regardless of Texas's outcome. (Although another poster's comment about downticket races has quite a lot of merit.) If he doesn't win outright and no one gets a majority of the EVs, then thing would get off the rails in the manner suggested.

But really, there's no way in either Hell or God's green Earth that Texas will allow their EVs to remain unused. Barr could win this suit, and the Texas legislature will find a way to make the election work anyway. Denying the Texas EVs to McCain is not the point.

The point of withdrawing would be to visibly and clearly show Obama upholding The Rules. It would be in many ways an empty gesture (as he's gonna lose there anyway) but I think still a powerful one.

Electorial College

[Digital End]

Am I mistaken in thinking that there's an easy loophole?

the electorial college doesn't have to vote for whoever won the popular vote in a state legally. So they just do their election, read the votes and vote for McCain like they were going to anyway. Doesn't matter if McCain's on the ticket or not, it's not like Texan's actually think about which to vote for. (no offence, but it's been red since '76, and that was an odd election)

are you following my posts?

[circletimessquare]

if you are, haha

if you are not:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=968167&cid=25057155

Re:are you following my posts?

[phlinn]

In fact, I had not been, but that's a fair point.

What I object to directly is "libertarianism guts the concept of the common good and declares selfishness supreme" and "there would be no common cause, only selfish isolated individuals looking after their own. " I consider myself largely libertarian, but nonetheless donate to charity and work for the benefit of other people. I do so voluntarily, and expect that many other people would do the same, but I don't think I have a right to compel them to do so with force. Libertarianism doesn't require a devotion to selfishness or that I keep myself isolate although it would allow me to do so if I chose. It arises from an unusual devotion to freedom as a concept. I believe objectivism may be closer to what you are thinking of, but I'm hesitant to agree with your classification even then.

Working for the benefit of the people around me is a good thing. I object only when someone robs me because they don't think I've been altruistic enough. I don't believe in doing evil in the name of good, and theft in the name of charity is still theft.

Is that better? I think it could use some editing.

Re:Is that the only way?

[chromatic]

There's plenty of things to fault the candidates for, but I don't think this is one of them.

If you want to vote for someone who ignores "inconvenient" laws, go ahead -- but I don't want the kind of government you deserve.

Re: electoral college

[cayenne8]

"I am not in favor of letting Texas secede. I would rather see Texas ejected from the union."

Instead, why not just annex Mexico? I mean, we're getting all the people, we might as well get the real estate that goes with them.

:)

Missing U

[ISoldat53]

This came about because of a severe shortage of the letter u in olden times. The old country took away all of the u letters from the colonies until the shortage ended.

Re:Not necessarily

[ari_j]

The use of the term "common law" here gives this post bonus points toward ot being the Absolute Stupidest Thing Ever Said on the Internet, Ever.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[Teancum]

There are multiple methods of allocating electoral votes, and the "winner takes all" system isn't even spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. It isn't even the only method used for allocation of electoral votes in each state.

Maine and Nebraska use a system of allocating the two votes for the senate as "winner take all" for the state-wide vote, and then allow each congressional district an independent vote... with each district's electoral vote allocated by the highest vote within that district. California and Florida would have both been "split" votes under such a system if those states were to switch to such a system.

Colorado in 2004 tried to set up a purely proportional voting system for electoral votes... and was voted down due to Democratic (big "D") opposition that ultimately hurt John Kerry in that Presidential election anyway. Again, if some of the larger states like Florida, California, or Texas were to vote this way, you would certainly see more attention to even subtle shifts in popular opinion in these states. Texas wouldn't have just 2 or 3 "blue" votes, but a whole bunch... possibly a few "green" votes (from 3rd parties) thrown in for good measure.

One other thing to consider... without even amending the constitution or any such nonsense... is to simply increase the number of representatives in Congress. What is up with the magic number 435? Even a modest increase to around 500 would give better representation in the House as well as better proportional representation in Presidential elections as well.

Those who complain about the electoral college often don't understand modest changes that could be done without having to completely overhaul the system... and could have a major impact on how candidates actually campaign if these modest changes were implemented.

I do agree, however, that changes can and should happen with the electoral college.

Re: electoral college

[Darby]

I know it's annoying to hear about some of the pork the rural minority gets, but in reality it is only a fair balance to the huge amount of pork the city interests get; a fair balance that wouldn't exist if we were a true democracy

Dude, seriously, put down the crack pipe. It's really doing you some damage. It's not at all balanced. The cities and large urban states pay the bills, the rural areas and states for the most part do not pay any taxes. They receive far more back then they put in. The difference comes from the cities and urban areas. So it's an extremely unfair imbalance created by the electoral college and other poorly implemented attempts at adjusting representation, not a balancing at all.
It allows people with little relevance or understanding to exert a massively disproportionate pull on the public pursestrings.
Now, I'd be a lot less pissed off about it if they had the integrity and basic decency t ojsut call themselves socialists and be done with it, but they;re the ones most likely to screech hatred of socialism and extoll the virtues of capitalism. People who are that controlled by self-loathing and delusion are a clear and present danger to this nation as reflected by their totally idiotic and disasterous presidential choices over the last 30 years.

I even dare to say that elimination of the electoral college is the kind of thing that would push less populated states to recede and possibly start a civil war (loss of federal representation like this, and not slavery, is exactly what caused the last one).

Let them leave. Who cares? They'll learn pretty quickly that they can't pay their bills without stealing my money to do it and hopefully they'll start to grow up and act like decent people and learn how to live in the modern world. That or they'll just deteriorate to third world status which is what they seem to want. At least they won't be able to drag the decent people down with them. Good riddance, I say.

 

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[Teancum]

The district election system you are suggesting already exists!

Unfortunately, it is only implemented in two rather insignificant states in terms of national elections: Nebraska and Maine.

It would be interesting if a slightly larger state or two were to adopt this system in some way, but unfortunately Ohio and Florida like being the center of national attention with a winner take all system. That is the deliberate choice of the state legislatures to do it this way, not something mandated by the U.S. Constitution or by federal legislation.

Re:please, people, cut the morondom

[unity100]

its a legislative assembly. they were trying to prevent breakage of the union.

gee i dunno

[circletimessquare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

Re:Is that the only way?

[Darby]

What's he gonna do if elected president?

Well based on the example you gave, but clearly don't even understand, it looks like he might consider the laws and the constitution to be important? He might consider the rule of law to be a good thing rather than something to lie cheat and steal in order to get around?

Yeah, you make a lot of sense. That really makes him a bad person. Fuck, dude, did your parents have any children that lived?

Re:Not necessarily

[calmofthestorm]

Those only make me sick if it's been awhile since everyone's last shower.

Re:Hahaha!

[MindlessAutomata]

I think he meant the more ideological type; the type that have a political philosophy and DON'T vote based on party line.

Re:They'll meet half way, Remove Obama, Leave McCa

[Toll_Free]

The electoral college was originally set up because most people in the US of A where illiterate at the time of the inception of the country.

Electoral college members would come from each "community" within a state, the number of EC members being proportionate to the amount of populace in each state. These "members" would cast a vote, based upon what their "community" wanted... IE, they where nothing more than people who counted the Yea's and Nay's at the local pub, then brought that to the state / county seat and cast a single vote to represent the masses.

It works then, and it works now. With the people I see posting on most other sites (slashdot members I've noticed have more of an education or literacy rate higher than most other 'forums'), I don't WANT their vote counted towards picking our president.

I mean, the electoral college is a flawed system in this day and age, but do you honestly want the next president picked by Britney, Lindsey and Nicole?

--Toll_Free

Not entirely true

[scipiodog]

Your definition of "civilized" may vary, but:

Russia is a Union of States. Brasil is a Union of States. Mexico is a Union of States. Germany is a Union of States. Austria is a Union of States.

The concept seems to be quite common.

Of the examples above, only Germany is even vaguely comparable.

Brazil and Mexico were single colonies of a single foreign power (Spain and Portugal) before becoming independent countries. The USA (before it existed) was made up of 13 separate colonies that were all administered quite separately, with different customs, political biases, etc.

Germany as a country is a recent invention, and is the result of Bismarck's enforced union in the 19th Century of entirely separate German-speaking countries, under Prussian domination. The only reason Austria isn't part of "Germany" is because they were already a fairly strong empire in their own right at the time (the Austro-Hungarian empire.)

My Austrian friends hate to hear this, and claim a political difference in the present day reflects the difference back then. The truth is that at the time of German unification, they had more in common with most Germans that the Bavarians, for example, who had customs and even language that diverged significantly from the rest of Germany. The only difference was Bavaria had a weaker ruler and was more easily forced into the federal system.

Re:Not entirely true

[zsau]

How a country was created is irrelevant to whether or not a state is a federation, or how elections should be conducted. Australia, for instance, is a federation with (at present) a federal election law for federal elections. Seven colonies were created over a period of some hundred years (chronologically, New South Wales, Tasmania as Van Diemen's Land, Western Australia as the Swan River Colony, South Australia, New Zealand, Victoria and Queensland). At the end of this process, an extra colony was created (called the Commonwealth of Australia) with some powers transferred from six of the seven colonies, and other powers transferred from London. The first election in this new colony was done using state electoral laws, but one of the first laws passed was an electoral law. Over the next fifty to ninety years, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and the other colonies became increasingly independent of London. Into which category does Australia fall?

Belgium is a federation of sorts, and one I don't fully understand. The federation is a relatively recent creation, but Flanders and Wallonia are powerful today, and very much culturally (and linguistically) different. But would you accept it as comparable?

Switzerland is probably another good example that you'd accept; their cantons come from relatively independent states in days when travel was a lot slower than it is today. I have no idea about their electoral law, aside from the fact that they have a massive number of referenda.

Re: electoral college

[TheLink]

If the voters keep voting for candidates that give them those subsidies and bail outs, that's what they want.

If people really reelected Bush, that's what they wanted.

That's called democracy and elections at work.

If you don't like that, you should vote to change it and convince enough people to do the same.

Re: electoral college

[carlivar]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian using the Republican Party to be heard and get elected.

And he's from Texas.

Re:Not necessarily

[CDMA_Demo]

Please stop propping up the two-party system. Thank you.

Its a two-party system because of how the electoral college is structured. Once you have three or more parties, the electoral math (from candidate's point of view) becomes complicated, this gradually leads to the party with minimal resources being sidelined.
 
If you want more than two prominent parties in the USA maybe you should talk to the federal government before asking someone else to "shtop" being sarcastic about the system.

Re:They've got it backwards

[mdarksbane]

I'm pretty sure they are trying that. Having a national candidate just gets a wider stage for their views.

But ballot access is a huge thing. In Ohio the libertarian party just won a big court case to even be allowed to run as libertarians. You could be Democrat, Republican, or Independent, but you weren't allowed to actively declare a different party. And they had to go to court over that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/politics/19ohio.html

Then explain this

[brunes69]

If people shouldn't vote for the president, but states do, then why should some states get mroe of a vote than others?

Don't give me the line that it is because they have more people because that would totally contradict the point of your first statement.

The idea of the electoral college is outdated, plan and simple. It was drafted when the idea of everyone in the country voting for someone in Washington would be a complete logistical nightmare. That has changed, the roles and powers of states have changed, the constitution should be changed.

Re:Not necessarily

[bigstrat2003]

I change what I can, where I can. I have a much better shot at changing the status quo by trying to change people's minds, one person at a time, than I do by pleading with those in power to change the system so that they have less power.

Sails, and your sig

[zooblethorpe]

Minor point, but wouldn't it make more sense to clew up the forecourse, furl it, and lash it to the foresail yard? Removing it entirely to stow it on the bowsprit would be much more work. :)

Cheers,

Re: electoral college

[drachenstern]

Well, two things. I have verified documents that show that my family did too, on both sides, and then there was my second point, that if it was a legislatively allowed happening according to a constitutional change (thus asking for +80% of the pop to vote for it) then there would be no second civil war.

But then again, I believe* in the titor story, so I'm waiting for the second one anyways.

* Just like I believe in electrons. I can't see them, but they sound like the best answer so far.

MOD PARENT UP

[zooblethorpe]

fartrader deserves mod points for understanding irony.

Cheers,

Electoral College?

[edibobb]

What's all this about an electoral college? Doesn't the U.S. Supreme Court select the President??

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

The guy I was replying to wanted Ron Paul to be the President of a hypothetical seceded Texas, and also had a sig that said "Vote Libertarian." Therefore, I assumed he mistakenly thought Ron Paul was running for president as a Libertarian.

Guns n Roses

[mcgrew]

Well we (Americans) lost our own Civil War. Can a civil war end in any other way?

"What's so civil about war, anyway?"

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

Because everything would be sooo much better if only we had corrupt politicians appointing even more corrupt politicians to run things.

The more local a politician gets, the less likely he is to be corrupt, just because you are better able to storm into his office and chew him out for it.

yes, republicanism

[circletimessquare]

not libertarianism

duh

Re: electoral college

[dynamo52]

I was more referring to the secessionist statement.

Re: electoral college

[eldepeche]

If a majority of the voters rather than a majority of the electors were required, we wouldn't have every presidential candidate in favor of retarded policies, and we might actually be able to debate these issues instead of having these policies taken for granted. California, New York and Texas are states with huge numbers of people whose needs have to take a backseat to the wants of the swing states. I'm in favor of abolishing the electoral college in order to have national elections be more about national issues, rather than the parochial concerns of swing state voters.

Re: electoral college

[eldepeche]

Who's talking about pork? I'm talking about bipartisan agreement in favor of retarded policies because our method of electing a president gives priority to the local issues in states where the partisan split is close to 50-50.

Also, when has California not paid its "fair share"? According to this website, California gets $0.92 for every dollar it pays in taxes.

Page 1 has only 11 postings?

[HTH NE1]

I'm not a member of Bob Barr's party, but I approve of his suit. (I also voted for the earlier story on the Firehose about the Democrats and Republicans missing this deadline, but it didn't make it to the front page.)

However I expect it to become another "Constitutional Emergency" like what got GWB elected the first time and the law set aside on the basis that there needs to be at least two candidates on the ballot. (Nevermind how many people run unopposed for positions across the nation, including that "because its a fun thing to do" congressman.)

BTW, I've never seen the first page of a thread be so short, at only 11 postings when browsing at zero before my making of this post, using Slashdot Classic.

The actual details

[indros13]

The Democratic and Republican parties did submit the required papers by the deadline, but with blanks where the nominee names would be, since neither had been officially nominated. As soon as the conventions were over, both parties submitted amendments to their filings to fill in the names.

According to at least one source I found, this kind of amendment is legal in Pennsylvania (where it happened before), but may not be in Texas.

What's clear is that both major parties did make a good faith effort to comply with the law, but with the dates of the conventions, they were not able to.

So, who's at fault? Texas, for having too early a filing deadline? The major parties, for having late conventions?

I would argue that to take them off the ballot would be the fairest option, in principle, but in practice, it will merely create a major headache for election officials who would then have to tally millions of write-in votes for Obama and McCain.

Prediction: If the court even hears the complaint, they dismiss it because of the implications for the actual election.

Re:Is that the only way?

[DavidD_CA]

Nice, real nice.

I think you miss the point I was trying to make. Rather than recognizing that maybe this law isn't right, he's just suing someone for his own benefit.

If this were a patent issue, we'd be all in arms about how the whole system is wrong and someone is taking advantage of the law.

But as soon as it's a minority party doing the same thing, then the Law is Gold and needs to be upheld no matter what.

Re:Is that the only way?

[Darby]

But as soon as it's a minority party doing the same thing, then the Law is Gold and needs to be upheld no matter what.

You really do not understand anything about the situation. At all.

The Republican and Democrat parties have been conspiring for decades to keep 3rd parties out of elections, out of debates, off of ballots through a huge variety of very sleazy tricks.
They had the former LP candidate, Badnarik arrested for showing up at the location of the debates to serve court papers related to their unauthorized restriction of our electoral process. That's one example among hundreds.

So, given that dirty tricks and sleaze are the standard technique that the 2 major parties use to maintain their power at the expense of the Republic, it is absolutely a great thing that Barr, douchebag that he is, is able to use election laws for the good of the country rather than at its expense.
Plus it is completely hilarious to see both parties screwed by the same techniques that they've mastered the art of fucking 3rd parties with. That is justice.

It's really not a bad thing to expect a presidential candidate to follow the laws regarding the election that they're running in. I'm pretty scared that you think that just believing that makes a person a scumbag. You might consider looking into what it means to be a citizen as opposed to being a subject. You clearly do not understand the distinction.

Re:Is that the only way?

[DavidD_CA]

All he's doing is just bringing himself down to their sleazy level.

How does that help?

Yes, it's hilarious to see our politicans playing power games on each other. Fodder for Jon Stewart, sure, but our courts have better things to do, and our voters deserve more from these people.

It's the fallout that creates the crisis.

[hey!]

Midnightwolf has this correct.

Theoretically, if the electors are selected according to Texas law, there should be no technical reason for the crisis. You can look at this like a failure tree:

(1) Obama or McCain get an absolute majority without Texas.

Result: no crisis.

(2) Obama gets a plurality which means McCain would have won if he was awarded Texas.

Result: Republicans argue that Texans were disenfranchised, and that the election should go to McCain.

(2.1) Obama plurality + the Supreme Court rules that the Texas electors were legitimately selected.

Result: The results will be technically legitimatee, but Republicans will nonetheless nonetheless refuse to acknowledge this as right or just. If the Democrats don't get a supermajority in the US Senate, the legislative branch grinds to a halt.

(2.2) Obama plurality + Supreme Court rules that the Texas electors were not legitimate.

Result: Real Constitutional crisis, because there's no procedure for dealing with this.

(2.2.1) TX Electors illegitimate + Texas electoral votes discounted.

Result: Republicans won't accept this. If the Democrats fail to win a supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans bring all public business to a halt. If the Democrats DO win a supermajority (which is likely), we have millions of angry Republicans ready to continue the fight by other means.

(2.2.2) Tx electors illegitimate + some kind of do-over, perhaps by legislative fiat in Texas.

Result: McCain wins. We have millions of angry Democrats ready to continue the fight by other means.

(3) Obama and McCain tie, exclusive of Texas.

Result: the election goes to the House. Oddly enough, sufficient numbers of red states have blue house delegations that this will PROBABLY throw the election to Obama. See 2.2.1. If it throws the election to McCain see 2.2.2.

(4) McCain wins a plurality.

Result: nothing. Since Obama has no chance of capturing Texas, the Texas situation did not change the result.

CONCLUSION: If Barr is successful, then we'd better pray that either Obama wins an outright majority, or McCain wins a plurality, because every other case leads to massive public dissatisfaction and unrest. It'd be the biggest political crisis in American history since the Civil War.

While comparing this to the Civil War might seem melodramatic, this is the kind of crisis that set countries down that path. We'd have millions of very angry, hostile people on either side of this question, and if it didn't lead to outright fighting, it wouldn't be surprising if it lead to a persistent, low level of domestic terror and sabotage.

The Libertarians Nominated Bob Barr?

[Traegorn]

This is the same guy who tried to get my religion banned from the Military, and somehow he's a Libertarian now?

*rolls eyes*

Re: electoral college

[StalinsNotDead]

The more local a politician gets, the less likely he is to be corrupt

That's not what I learned from The Dukes of Hazzard.

Re: electoral college

[AK Marc]

But Texas isn't a swing state, so when base closings were happening, it got the shaft. Iowa isn't really a swing state, but is an early primary state. California isn't a swing state, so they've lost on a number of clean air issues they've tried to push there (they passed in CA, and then the feds passed something that nullified them). It's proof the system doesn't work if there are things done for a specific state that most people in the country don't want, and most people in the country don't get what they want because they aren't in a swing state. It isn't those they elect that are representing them, but those they didn't even vote for trying to bribe voters to like their party by giving them things they think they want.

I hope it passes

[hesaigo999ca]

I really hope they get revoked, it would be nice the rules to apply to EVERYONE for a change.
When i get in a few minutes late at work, I get told off, and get a reprimand....
when I am late on my taxes by just a few days, I don't get any extra couple of days...
so why is it that they should be any different.

Let everyone learn this lesson, so that in future, they follow all the rules...

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[AK Marc]

On account of some retarded technicality, we should fuck up another election for the whole nation?

That's all elections are. If you want to get rid of all the "retarded technicalities" then just have whoever wants to vote show up in Washington DC and whoever yells "yea" loud enough at the roll call wins. If you don't file your paperwork, you shouldn't be on the ballot. The major parties use this all the time in order to exclude 3rd parties, so why not have a 3rd party use it against them?

Every time someone misses the April 15th tax filing deadline, we should send them to PMITA prison for being such a procrastinating douche.

There are specific ruels about that, and they are followed. There are rules on everything. Are you arguing that all laws should be optional? I think there might be some issues with your world view.

And fuck Barr for continuing the fine Libertarian Party tradition of coming across as a complete whackjob.

What, you mean trying to get the government to follow its own rules? Absurd!

Re:Hahaha!

[Progoth]

Wow, you really have no concept of people ever learning or changing, do you? To you, once you have an opinion, you will never ever change it no matter what facts you're presented with or what you learn. Am I right?

Back when Bob Barr was a Republican I was too, because I'd never given it any thought (being from a public school system).

Now I know better, and I'm more libertarian-minded than Barr (I believe in states' rights, but he wants to give them a little too much power, and he is wrong on immigration), but I'm still supporting him as the best candidate in the race, and volunteering again tomorrow.

Some people can admit to being wrong...obviously you're not one of them or can't identify with anybody any different than yourself.

Re:if you support third party candidates

[Progoth]

It offers no mechanism to correct imbalances that inevitably arise in society

Yes, everybody must be equal. Fascist much?

It cannot adapt to the conflict that "maximum personal liberty" is nonlinear and NP-complete unless you live in a single-issue society.

I disagree.

What is best for the individual is sometimes in conflict with what is best for society, or for the world at large and libertarianism doesn't accept that as a compelling justification.

I'm glad that YOU know which of my rights I should surrender. Please, let me surrender them to you! If it's in the interest of society, in your mind, then you must be right!

Re:Not necessarily

[CDMA_Demo]

I change what I can, where I can. I have a much better shot at changing the status quo by trying to change people's minds, one person at a time, than I do by pleading with those in power to change the system so that they have less power.

Took a while to come up with a reason? People in general don't want to prioritize changing the party system over other things that affect their daily life. Voting to lower taxes vs. Voting to increase the number of political parties. The winner is always a cause that affects your lifestyle or bread and butter. Maybe somewhere down the chain of worries you'll find a disagreement for the party system.

You want to convince people to elect a government that amends the constitution so we have a different electoral system? Try comparing it with Roe vs. Wade. A court decision for most americans means more than a possible amendment. If you want to know what people care most about, listen to what politicians say. They have pollsters who research concerns of the common public, and that shapes the speeches and words of candidates.
 
I admire your resolve to change the status quo but things need to be done a bit differently.

Re:Not necessarily

[bigstrat2003]

Took a while to come up with a reason?

Matey, I be confused. I did be respondin' t' yer comment only 8 minutes after ye posted it. What be ye tryin' to say here?

Ye be right, though. People don't be carin' about th' votin' system in our country, because they don't think it be affectin' 'em. Then again, most people are slow landlubbers, only fit to be keelhauled, arr.

Re:Let's Get Real for a Second

[AK Marc]

But failing to obtain that guarantee does not somehow imply that the state must prevent their names from appearing on the ballot.

Not according to the numerous lawsuits filed by the Democratic and Republican parties to exclude 3rd parties that missed the deadlines or managed to get signatures invalidated. The way the rules are here, it does explicitly state that the deadline is a deadline. You don't meet it, you don't get on the ballot. I haven't read TX law on this exact point, but what is the point of calling it a "deadline" if it isn't, in fact, a deadline? That should be the guaranteed date, not a deadline. And if that was the case, it would be unconstitutional. Vague laws are not allowed, because in practice, they are applied unequally, which is unconstitutional.

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

Non-Americans absolutely have the right to express an opinion of a US democratic system, and it's just as valid as an American's (almost half of whom don't even bother participating in it anyway!).

By the same token, Americans have the right to express an opinion of a foreign democratic (or other) system. Note that the parliamentary system is designed to DO things. Our system is designed to hamstring government, not to encourage its excesses.

Note that I prefer King Log to King Stork.

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

Changes like removing the u from favour or changing the re to er in calibre occurred within the first fifty years. It was a deliberate attempt to establish American spellings.

Not quite. The English didn't actually have standardized spellings at the time of the American Revolution. So it is disingenuous to say that we "changed" the spelling. We simply adopted a different standard spelling, at about the same time as the English adopted their own standard spelling.

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

resulted in things like the blatant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, blackmailing states into accepting things like speed limits and Real ID, etc.

Yeah, right. Because everything would be sooo much better if only we had corrupt politicians appointing even more corrupt politicians to run things.

Actually, one must remember that the original concept was that the House of Representatives (note the name) act to represent the people. The Senate's original purpose was to represent the States, not the people.

By changing the election of Senators to direct election, we have essentially two identical house of Congress - both represent the people directly, and are beholden to the mob. As opposed to the original situation, where the Senate was NOT beholden to the mob, and was meant to provide stability in the Congress.

Of course, since the reelection rate in both houses is about 90+, it can be argued that BOTH houses of Congress provide "stability".

Note by the way that the notion of a lifetime of service in the House of Representatives was NOT part of the world-picture of the Founding Fathers. The House was meant to be something you did for a couple of years before going back to your life.

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

If a majority of the voters rather than a majority of the electors were required, we wouldn't have every presidential candidate in favor of retarded policies, and we might actually be able to debate these issues instead of having these policies taken for granted. California, New York and Texas are states with huge numbers of people whose needs have to take a backseat to the wants of the swing states. I'm in favor of abolishing the electoral college in order to have national elections be more about national issues, rather than the parochial concerns of swing state voters.

Of course, switching from the current swing states to California, New York, and Texas doesn't imply that national elections will be about "national issues". It implies they'll be about the issues of interest to New York, California, and Texas. So switching from one parochial viewpoint to another parochial viewpoint makes a lot of sense to you?

Note that Texas is an oil-producing state. If you emphasize their interests, you're handing even more influence to the oil companies than now.

Re:if you support third party candidates

[mr_matticus]

Yes, everybody must be equal. Fascist much?

I said no such thing. Distort much?

I disagree.

Feel free to do so, but that does not change the essential fact. It is not possible to achieve without balancing interests. Ideological blinders are still blinders.

Re:Not necessarily

[kesuki]

"The two-party system was how our Republic was founded."

you're a bit historically challenged there. yes it's true there were 'two major national parties' but the fact is one of them was a coalition of about 5 political parties that each had regional party names, to a certain respect the 'democrat' and 'republican' parties are still coalitions of smaller state based parties. as a matter of fact in Minnesota they still call their party the 'democrat farm and labor party' DFL and they're a part of the modern coalition of the 'democrat' party.

and to demonstrate my point that it is a coalition, http://www.freeople.com/blog/brady-wright-reports-rnc-minneapolis-suggests-next-steps-r3publicans/1410 the RNC silence ron paul supporters at the RNC because ron paul was supported by a state political party that didn't vote for mccain, despite being part of the RNC. it is a coalition, a 2 coalition system.

libertarians who are out there and in numbers who dislike the coalition process have very good reasons for disliking the coalitions, because trying to keep that many independent organizations to support the same basic party planks is all but a joke. anyways the point being in the old days when only land owing white men had suffrage, there were still more than 2 political parties, but for the sake of winning presidential races small state based parties formed coalitions using names like the 'federalists' and the democratic-republican party' over the ages the names of the national coalitions changed, as did their policies and beliefs... there could easily come a day when the 'libertarian' party reaches the critical mass needed to replace the 'democrat' party and we wind up having a 'libertarian' and a 'republican' coalition instead of the republican and democrats...

so the illusion of their being a 2 party system in the US is really just that, we really have a coalition of two groups that each have 50 state sized political parties, while the constitution party the green party and the libertarian parties are outside attempts to erode the power bases of the existing republican and democrat power bases because some people just can't stand the types of compromises politicians make the be 'part of a coalition'

if the 'green' party became large enough to replace the democrat coalition, it would still wind up being a coalition of 50 state parties, each state has it's own society it's own politicians and it's own interests and types of corruption. the broken part of the system is that you'll never get a 1 size fits all solution to the problems of the day. oh yeah, that and every major politician in Washington DC is pro big government, no matter what they say to the contrary. All you have to do is go back and look at the budget deficits that the major political parties voted to create, bill clinton was marginally an outsider who was supposed to loose to bush, and he's the only guy who turned around the budgets by repeatedly shutting down the government. this is why big money used every trick in the book to get obamam in there against Hillary Clinton. they trust obama but Hillary might have learned something from her husband.

there are rich and wealthy who make their living off buying US treasury bonds, and for there to be enough US treasury bonds for their wealth to keep growing, the US debt has to keep growing. this is the disconnect between the uninformed electorate and the corruption at the highest levels of the government.

9/11 wasn't a 'failure' of American security, it was a planed national crisis to start a trillion dollar war so the rich could avoid having to buy junk bonds, and could keep playing it safe in high grade us government bonds. If the average American actually pieced together the truth, they would probably in mass vote for politicians who didn't even run TV ads and instead used free internet message board systems to communicate their goals and ideals, and

We have that but it's for parties which got 5%.

[Tatarize]

 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY
REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. (a) To be entitled to have
the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot, a
political party required to make nominations by convention must
file with the secretary of state, not later than the 75th day after
the date of the precinct conventions held under this chapter, lists
of precinct convention participants indicating that the number of
participants equals at least one percent of the total number of
votes received by all candidates for governor in the most recent
gubernatorial general election. The lists must include each
participant's residence address and voter registration number.
(b) A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection
(a), in each subsequent general election following a general
election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who
received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the
total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.

The Texas law says any parties which get more than 5% last time around get to be on the ballot this time around. That would be the Democrats and Republicans.

Re: electoral college

[quacking duck]

By the same token, Americans have the right to express an opinion of a foreign democratic (or other) system.

Of course.

Note that the parliamentary system is designed to DO things. Our system is designed to hamstring government, not to encourage its excesses.

In theory, this may be the case. In practise, the US system does neither. The most shocking examples to me are the allowing of totally un-related riders to be attached to bills, or having private industry or special interest groups writing the legislation that a member introduces as his own (after suitable bribes... ahem, lobbying... has occurred).

Riders were discussed just yesterday I think; someone pointed out it was a system of compromise, so the pot is sweetened enough that enough congress critters and senators will vote it through. Sorry, I don't buy it--if your system is designed to hamstring government and prevent excesses, its current form fails on both counts. Otherwise riders would never be allowed, and bills would have to pass on fail as written, or with changes relevant to the legislation. No BS about more funding to the war attached to a bill about child care.

The best way to hamstring government is, firstly, not have a de facto two-party system. With at least three strong parties, either nothing ever gets done, or coalitions form on an issue-by-issue basis. Of course, if the minority government has weak opposition parties, they can act like a majority and easily get things through. See Canada as a recent example.

Of course, we saw in the 1930s what happened when the German government couldn't get anything done--ultimately, the people do expect their representatives to get SOMEthing accomplished to earn their pay.

Re:Hahaha!

[Neoprofin]

That's just cynical.

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

No BS about more funding to the war attached to a bill about child care.

Usually, it's the other way around. For years and years, breast cancer research money was appropriated as part of the Defense Budget.

Re: electoral college

[quacking duck]

No BS about more funding to the war attached to a bill about child care.

Usually, it's the other way around. For years and years, breast cancer research money was appropriated as part of the Defense Budget.

I just made my example up, actually.

Thanks for a real-life example. My opinion on riders stands: if the defense budget couldn't get passed without relevant amendments, then a) the majority voting bloc, as elected by the people, doesn't believe it's worth passing; and/or b) come next election, if the people disagreed with their reps on this issue strongly enough, they get voted out.

Something similar would happen if legislation/approval for breast cancer research funding was tabled separately.

Re:Texas is republican...

[KingOfTheDustBunnies]

If Texas has this rule in place, I'm sure there's some other sub-rule or exception that allows for reserving the nominee's spot, or the 70-day rule only applies to non-Dem/GOP people.

I reckon it's easy to be sure there's such a provision if you haven't read the statute. I haven't seen any such provision.

It doesn't make any sense to have such a rule when both parties nominate their candidates later in the year than that.

Or perhaps it doesn't make any sense for the parties to nominate their candidates so late in the year when Texas has such a rule. It's entirely reasonable for states to establish filing deadlines. The two big parties were fully aware of the Texas law, and chose to ignore it by scheduling the latest pair of conventions in history.

Re:Personally...

[Cassius Corodes]

Centralised vs Decentralised is an exploration vs exploitation problem - a strong centralised power limits variation and increases efficiency, whereas a decentralised power increases variation at the cost of efficiency. The point I wanted to make is that there is nothing inherently better between one solution and another, they are both good for different situations.

Australia followed much the same path as America (i.e. strong states over time turned into weak states) and although I cannot comment from experience on America, I can say it has been beneficial to Australia, and we probably wouldn't be anywhere near our current standing in the world if we had kept our original constitutional configuration.

Bayesian regret

[weltschmerz]

ALL voting methods can fail to elect the most popular candidate. But extensive Bayesian regret calculations show that Score Voting (aka Range Voting) does the best job of any feasible voting method at electing the most popular candidate possible (where "most popular" means "most liked by the most people", not necessarily "the favorite candidate of the most people"). http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html

Bob Barr = Borat

[s0l1dsnak3123]

When ever I think of Bob Barr, I instantly think of Borat. "My wife made theese... She made it from milk from her teet."

Re: electoral college

[mrchaotica]

Ah, but you see, those Duke boys could get away with their hijinks specifically because Boss Hogg was local, and ultimately not that powerful. Imagine if they had the Secret Service after them!

Re: electoral college

[CrimsonAvenger]

My opinion on riders stands: if the defense budget couldn't get passed without relevant amendments, then a) the majority voting bloc, as elected by the people, doesn't believe it's worth passing;

Ahh, but it wasn't a matter of getting the Defense Budget passed. It was a matter of getting extra money for breast cancer research without raising the budget items that should be paying for such things. So they put the money into the Defense Budget (and then railed against how high "defense spending" was.

Note that there is nothing intrinsic in the system that requires riders. There's just nothing in the system that forbids riders. And while almost everyone thinks that Congress is a bunch of incompetent crooks (just like they think the Administration is), they almost always agree that THEIR Congresscritter does a good job - it's those OTHER Congresscritters (basically, the ones you can't vote for/against) who are the scalawags.

Therein lies the problem. I vote for two Senators and one Congresscritter. Mine are about average, really. Nothing special, one way or another. Will I vote to toss them out? Probably not, since the guys running against them aren't so outstanding as to make me toss a known not-so-bad for an unknown. Do I think there are a lot of scoundrels in Congress and the Senate? Yeppers. Probably half or better would be better off in prison. But what can I do about the ones I don't get a vote on? Basically, learn to live with it. Or whinge about it on /.

Re:Is that the only way?

[Darby]

All he's doing is just bringing himself down to their sleazy level.

How does that help?

Wow. If you feel that making our leaders follow the laws too is sleazy, then I doubt I'll be able to get anything across to you.