Correct answers Ned. I am impressed.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Elections and the Electoral College
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
2) Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. Problem is, given that the House is so tight now, he might defer to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Strom Thurmond. After Thurmond, it'd be Colin Powell, the Secretary of State; Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary; Rumsfeld, the defense secretary; and then John Ashcroft, the AG. (Don't know after that.)
Then the succession goes through the cabinet in the order of seniority of the departments, which is why they always send one of the cabinet members to that 'undisclosed location' when everybody gets together to listen to the State of the Union speech.
After that, if necessary, it goes through the members of Congress of either chamber in order of seniority.
Recently there was talk about changing things, so that the succession stays more within the administration before going over to members of congress.
Comment
-
Not exactly on topic but I think there is an amendment that says that if a citizen of the US accepts a title of nobility from another country that the individual is stripped of their citizenship.
I have been thinking of asking Tom Clancy about that since he had Jack Ryan knighted by the Brits and later becoming President after a terrorist attack.
Interesting of course that in Clancy's book, a Japanese pilot, angered by a loss by the Japanese in a war, crashes an airliner into Congress during a joint session wiping out most of the government. We say that truth is stranger than fiction but in this case Clancy might have actually given terrorists the idea for the 9/11 attacks.
I know that I thought about that book on 9/11. Especially since in another book Clancy has a Islamic terrorists detonating a nuke in Denver that was supposedly built from an Israeli nuke that was lost in the 1973 war. I think that book was "The sum of all fears".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Name the three. AFAIK, only Tiden v. Hayes in 1876 was the only other election when the person with fewer popular votes won the election.
Now for some more.
From http://www.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm
1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65
You know Imran you were right its not three,
ITS FOUR.
Thank you for this opportunity to show that its more broken than I said.
And btw, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to in the last election. The person that won the electoral college won. The popular vote is simply a modern contrivance that the media likes.
Working like it was designed to is not always a good thing. Especially in this case.
The popular vote is not a contrivance. It is in keeping with the concept of one man one vote.
Our states are more independant than any other provinces in the Western world. It is one of the defining things about the United States, the states have REAL power, such as their own independant court systems and legislature that can make significant laws.
And in the Constitutional principles stated, the founders decided 'one man, one vote' was not to be forwarded, and rightly so, might I add.
The founders did not set up the Electoral College to avoid one man one vote. They did it because they feared a favorite son effect and a lack of national knowledge which has not been a problem for a very long time.
Few people still think of themselve as citizens of their state first and citizens of the US second.
The states have power and the Senate and the EC are part and parcel of that power given. It is because of that, that the rights of the states have not been raped by the federal government.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ned
Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.
Ned is fully capable of inventing my postition for me all on his own.
Thank you Ned. I never knew I felt that way. I guess I must have made a mistake each and every time that I said on this very thread that the Senate is allready representing the States.
Watch it Ned or it won't just be Frogger quoting you in their sig.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Maybe we should declare the part of the Constitution that sets up the Electoral College unconstitutional...
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimmytrick
The United States is a representative democracy. Congress was designed to have two houses, one of which gives each state equal votes irregardless of population. If you take the position that the electoral college is wrong, you would have to lobby for the elimination of the Senate on the same grounds.
And you will be redesigning the basics of the Republic. It would require an amendment to the constitution, which, ironically, requires a majority of votes of states, not of the people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ned
If Cheney dies, the Pres. nominates a replacement that is confirmed by Congress.
Sorry Ethelred. Your one man, one vote principle shot down one more time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by jimmytrick
So, we could have Newt Gingrich as VP if Cheney croaks.
Bribetaker Newt hasn't been in an elected office for quite some time now. You are three years out of date.
From the Bribetakers own site.
About Newt
Newt Gingrich is the CEO of The Gingrich Group, a communications, and management-consulting firm with offices in Atlanta and Washington, DC. Speaker Gingrich serves as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC and as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. He is a news and political analyst for the Fox News Channel. Newt also serves as honorary Chairman of the NanoBusiness Alliance and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Museum of the Rockies.
A highly sought after public speaker and world-renowned strategist, Gingrich served as a Member of Congress for twenty years and as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999.
Comment
-
There are plenty of practical reasons for not using the popular vote. We have learned that votes are never tabulated correctly. This will probably always be a problem. Dead people still vote.
The Bush/Gore popular vote was very close, within the margin of error. From the crazy goings on in Florida we have seen what can happen with votes being challenged. Multiply that by perhaps 3 or 4 states in a close election and the result would be no better than we had in the last election and possibly much worse. If some of the public is not convinced of Bush's legitimacy with recounts in Florida, how would they be assured if we had suffered recounts in every state where the vote is close, or where someone can come up with any sort of challenge.
It would be a zoo.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ethelred
Jimmy are you sure you want to continue posting on this thread. That was a clear indication of just how far out of your depth you are.
Bribetaker Newt hasn't been in an elected office for quite some time now. You are three years out of date.
Isn't it comforting to build sandcastles on oceanless beaches?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
a lack of national knowledge which has not been a problem for a very long time.
I'm sorry, but I found this comment hilarious. Americans are so informed!
Perhaps I should have said the information is readily available. You can lead a Right Winger to knowledge but you can't make him think.
Comment
Comment