Posted on 06/03/2004 8:00:39 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
OK, I can still see post 79 on my comments to me screen, privileged chap that I am, and the guy caught me out on my asserted numbers, which was most excellent. I love being blown away, when the facts dictate it. So why was the post deleted? Talk to me AM. Don't be a stranger. For the record, in light of Hayes versus Tilden, I revise and extend my remarks to revise 51.5% to 48.5% to 52% to 48%.
Ignore the post above. I am moving beyond incipient to a more demonsrable form of dementia.
See post 81, which is a response, sort of. :)
I asked the Admin Moderator to blow away the previous version. I had a data error, formatting error and a text mistake when I cut and pasted a draft instead of final version of my reply from the most excellent NoteTab Pro (v4.95) (just a very satisfied customer)...
The 1824 case is special, since Adams(6) aka "John Quincy Adams" did not win the "popular" or electoral vote, but had to win by 13 out of 24 House State delegation (54.2%) to become President...
Just some facinating US election trivia...
dvwjr
I have long advocated that the other states adopt Maine and Nebraska's system (and this can of course be done without any Constitutional amendment). It preserves the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College but with finer granularity. Most states would become "battleground states" because almost every state would have at least some contestable Congressional Districts where the outcome wasn't foreordained. California, New York, Texas, etc. would suddenly be in play (at least in some areas).
Right now, if a state is too big, everyone in it from that state's "minority" party (whether Democrat or Republican) is effectively disenfranchised. And right now, if the vote in a state is extremely close, it requires a massive recount throughout the entire state (just as in Florida). Abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with a pure popular vote would just magnify the problem if the national totals were evenly divided. We'd need to recount the entire country.
On the other hand, a system based on Congressional Districts would limit the problem to a handful of very close CD's scattered around the country. That would be far more manageable. In most Congressional Districts the result would be clear-cut and unchallenged.
So for a variety of good reasons, we should follow the examples of Maine and Nebraska.
As southernnorthcarolina mentioned, it would makes the stakes that much higher for the line drawing of CD districts. Clever gerrymanders by one party in control of enough big states, could seal the election for their party's candidate for the next decade. That dog won't hunt, and must be made not to hunt. It must be killed in its crib.
You are right .. and I believe an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. It would take years and years to accomplish this - plenty of time to educate the public to the reality of "the most votes wins".
Two thirds majority in Congress and three-fourths of the States.
The real virtue of the electoral college today is to manage the outbreak of corruption which would be inherent in an undifferentiated massive "One man- one vote" as well as to uphold the representative federalist form of government.
I hope BW enjoyed Florida 2000. With direct election of the president, we would have ten, twenty, a hundred Floridas every election, because every vote would be worth cheating for, and suing for, not just those in close states. It would mean fighting and refighting election returns in corrupt sinkholes like St Louis and Philly, to name just two, where large numbers of fraudulent votes were tallied.
They are trying to get the country "ready" for Hillary to run for President. She can't win with it the way it stands.
Right you are- check out Canada. This is what so called Democracy has caused. One area of Canada (lots of people) decides all issues in Canada. The author doesn't see fit to mention that the people living in small states would be disenfranchised effectively if the electoral college were abolished. New Hampshire, Maine etc would get no attention from any candidate. Also, the Democrats would be able to steal elections so much easier if the electoral college were abolished.
I agree that a proportional electoral system based on each state's overall popular vote would be far less objectionable than one based on Congressional Districts, for reasons previously cited. Even the better of the two proportional schemes bothers me, though. State lines should mean something (maybe the old "States Rights" Southerner coming out in me), and the loss of the winner-take-all system would surely deemphasize the importance of the states.
Anyway, we're probably beating a very dead horse. I can't see many individual states going to such a system voluntarily; anyway you slice it, they'd be diluting their electoral clout (which is why I am perplexed by the choices made by Maine and Nebraska, and would not be surprised to see either or both states end their little experiments, which in any event have had no effect to date since the Dems have taken all of Maine's EVs, and the GOP all of Nebraska's). So the only way we'll see a proportional electoral vote system happen is via a Constitutional amendment, which is about as likely as me being named the next Pope.
Hmmm - when I lived in Colorado, I was in the same congressional district as Boulder, so my GOP vote went for naught. Funny how the author is being quite selective with his concerns here - gee, could he possible have an agenda?
Wow, awesome line! :D
Splendid looking pups by the way. A different ring color collar for each pup. How cute. I was not familiar with the breed. Does the breed avoid the downside of the long adolescence of labs?
The different colors of yarn "collars" are standard operating procedure for new litters. They help ensure that one puppy doesn't get two booster shots while another misses out; with a litter of ten, it helps each get a shot at nursing (the pups don't give up their spots voluntarily); and of course, some pups are sold as early as two weeks of age, so they have to be kept track of until they're ready to go to their new homes at 6 to 7 weeks of age.
Now, as far as the downside of a long adolescence is concerned, that's a hallmark, to a greater or lesser extent, of all domestic dogs (or maybe I should say adolescence without the sullen, "silent treatment" interludes, but certainly with the rebelliousness, exploring of limits, and general rowdiness). Wolf pups will play with their litter-mates, or with a stick, when young, but they get over it, and soon get on about the business of being adults. Domestic dogs, it has been posited, have a form of arrested development bred into them, largely because that's the kind of behavior most human owners prefer.
I would say that Weimaraners, along with Labs, are toward the upper end of the "extended adolescence" scale. Both are hunting dogs (the Lab being a retriever, specializing in all-weather water retrieving, extending even to breaking the ice on a pond to get a dead duck; whereas the Weimaraner was bred to be a multipurpose tracker/pointer/retriever, mostly upland, but will retrieve from water if it's not too cold), and are therefore bred to interact with humans. This is usually a good thing, but it can make them pests, too, since they constantly want to play, or to go for a walk, or a ride in the car, and constantly want human companionship (and human food, sofas, and beds, too, if they can get away with it).
I like those characteristics myself. Others don't. Hence, Torie, the existence of cats.
afternoon ping
So now we count illegals as full citizens of a state for purposes of determining the state's population and number of representatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.