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:
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.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.
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.
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).
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.
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
