:) I was referring in particular to what we are taught in school as children
compared to reality. The idealised way it's supposed to work compared to
the thing it is.
Tom C.
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last-minute political camera fun
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:17:26 -0500
Devious possibly but not really surreptitious if you take the time to read
about it. It's not a secret
just poorly understood, and mostly not taught... Ok surreptitious by
obscurity.
Tom C wrote:
Ah yes. The fourth definition of Byzantine was eesentially my point.
of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious
manner of operation
Tom C.
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last-minute political camera fun
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:51:18 -0500
As I said, Byzantine. You have to look at it in perspective, the United
States was only the second Republic, (semi-Democratic Federal Republic at
that), to come into existence since the fall of the Roman republic, (a
bit less than 2000 years). The only other Republic, which strangely
enough was a Federation as well, in existence at the time was
Switzerland. For a country built entirely on theory, interpretations of
ancient history and lots of compromise, with only one working example to
look to, it's worked surprisingly well with amazingly few changes and
corrections.
Tom C wrote:
Hi Peter,
You're much better versed in the technical details than myself.
Interesting the way things really work, eh? Thanks for the
clarifications.
In general, I was attempting to make the point... well now I can't
remember... :)
Tom C.
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Last-minute political camera fun
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:39:40 -0500
Tom C wrote:
William Robb wrote:
All we ask is that you just choose one this time around.
-------------------------------------
I normally don't comment on politics, but I've heard this so many
times over the last four years and have to say:
1. Based on the electoral college, numerous voters are dienfranchised
from the start. In other words, their vote for a president only counts
up to the state level. If a state is 75% for one candidate and 25%
for another, all electoral votes for the state go to the person with
75% of the vote, meaning the votes of the other 25% essentially don't
count when it comes to choosing the president. Supposedly this helps
keep big states from deciding the election and beating out all the
little states. It leads to the situation where the candidate that
wins the popular vote, might just not get to office.
Since how electors are chosen is up to the state legislatures and was
not necessarily intended to be democratic I see no problem with this
under the Constitution. I doubt the founders ever intended there to be
even an indirect popular election of the President. However since it
is the states who select electors, you might like the way Maine and
Nebraska have decided select electors, each congressional district
elects one and two are selected at large. Maine will probably have 3
electors for Kerry and one for Bush, I have no idea how Nebraska will
vote.
2. If there is a dispute regarding the outcome of an election, where
else can it be taken but to the courts?
The rules are quite clear, under the US Constitution (the 12th and 24th
amendments), and the Federal Election Laws from 1890 or there abouts to
the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1964. There is a finite period of
time for a recount. After which there is a finite period of time for a
legal challenge. If there is no resolution at this time the
Legislature of the State, (on the theory that they are the most
popularly elected body in the state), can then select electors. On the
"real" Presidential election day The Monday following the Second
Wednesday in December the Electors meet and cast their votes. They are
certified and forwarded to Washington to be counted on January 6 in the
presence of the both houses of Congress. The only reason for the
Supremes to get involved was the Meddling of the Florida Supreme Court
which left no time for the process to play out.
3. If the Supreme Court had not gotten involved there would have been
no resolution at all and one can only wonder if Clinton would still be
in office. What if the court had said, OK Congress you choose the
president?
Under the Constitution they are supposed to! If it gets to that point
and there is a tie between the Presidential Candidates the House with
each State delegation voting a single vote choses the president. Since
there are more house delegations controlled by Republicans than
Democrats then Bush wins. But it gets better.
The Senate picks the Vice President, each Senate voting individually
but only a 2/3 quorum is required to be present. Depending on the
makeup of that quorum Edwards could be elected Vice President, or if
there is a tie, Dick Cheney could end up electing himself with the tie
breaking vote. Such fun.
4. If the Supreme Court had ordered new elections then one party or
another would scream "unfair", because you can't count on the same
people showing up/not showing up as last time.
They may but that's not constitutional. The state Legislatures choose
the electors, if they have them elected by popular vote, all fine and
good, if there is no time the Constitution and Federal Law mandates
that the State chose a slate of electors who vote on Presidential
election day and it falls to the state Legislature to pick them. (The
minority party will yell "unfair" anyway but those are the rules). The
Supreme Court has no say, it is constitutionally out of their hands.
5. If the Supreme Court had come down in favor of the opposing
candidate, then it would be the Republicans crying that the president
was selected, not elected, as the Democrats have been doing since
2000.
The US Supreme court short circuited the Constitutional Process, to
keep the Florida Supreme Court from short circuiting it. The charge
that the President was Selected not Elected was inevitable, only it
would have been the Florida Legislature who would have selected Bush,
(Republicans had the majority).
6. Indirectly, by virtue of past presidential candidates being elected
and having chosen Supreme Court justices, one could make the case that
the "people" did actually choose one.
Quite farcical actually.
More byzantine actually than farcical. It's all done in an attempt to
be fair and accurately reflect the will of the people, while giving a
second chance just in case it's found that the President selected by
the States is unfit between national election day, and presidential
election day, (in case you question that you'll have to read the
Federalist Papers, I did). In my opinion it's better than letting the
lawyers do it. The preeminent branch of government is supposed to be
the Congress, and I have no doubt they would assert their prerogatives
if the court had tried to actually select the president.
Tom C.
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get
to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners -
two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to
drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two
things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to
drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two
things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
