|
|
As America hurtles toward the next presidential race, the HBO film
'Recount' will relive the fervor of 2000's messy election. Kevin Spacey
and Denis Leary take Al Gore's fight to the courts on May 25 - make your own case here on the boards, where the most cogent arguments will be featured in a special poll on HBO.com. And don't worry - this time all the votes will be counted.
The question: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
5/29/08
|
|
(87 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 29, 2008 9:37 PM
|
|
The Founding Fathers (a term coined by Warren G. Harding, by the way) gave each state equal suffrage in the Senate, to protect them. Along the same line, I feel that there should be one electoral vote per House and Senate district, like Maine and Nebraska do now. That would make EACH district important, and not disenfranchise rural voters. Additionally, paper ballots, not electronic or punch ballots, that are machine readable should be used. Ballots rejected by the machines would be hand-counted at the time of the initial count, if determinable. In the event of a recount, ALL ballots would be easier to recount, because it eliminates punch ballots, and because it makes electronic mischief more difficult.
|
|
|
Posts:
168
Registered:
9/14/07
|
|
(86 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 29, 2008 1:20 AM
|
Interesting Ray. I have no doubt that you are correct in what you say. Perhaps this is why the founders also wrote that when the government no longer serves the needs of the people it is not only their right, but their duty to change or abolish it. After the fiasco in Florida it seems that the american people need to remember why that statement was made.
Since this is a federal election I see no reason why it shouldn't fall under federal jurisdiction. There really needs to be a uniform voting standard, and the only way that I can see that happen is if the winning of the office of president is by popular vote only. It seems leaving it up to the discretion of the individual states opens the process up to all kinds of tom foolery.
When this country was founded the representatives they had were not as tempted to tinker with the system. Being in government service was not a lifetime career, with the salaries, retirements, and all the perks that it has since developed.
I still say that the electoral voting system should be abolished, and the events of the 2000 election is a very good example of why it should be.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(85 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral vo
May 29, 2008 1:18 AM
|
RayFleet wrote:
>"Beagle, I'm glad you are back. When you said you were exhausted I was afraid you signed off. I feel that our debate was conducted at higher level than much of the tripe below. Welcome back. ..."
Thanks for your kind response.
Pressing personal matters and family health issues are limiting my ability to respond on a point-by-point basis. My overall attitude about electing the President/Vice President by popular vote is one of great skepticism -- not outright rejection of the idea. Here's a concern I haven't seen mentioned before:
I fear that the popular vote approach would increase the powers of both the President and the Federal bureaucracy (already too strong, in my view). This increase would come at the expense of State and local governments which have become more and more dependent on the Federal Government over time anyway. It would also weaken the Congress, relative to the President. I don't have the time to elaborate on why I think this but my instincts tell me it's so.
Powerful charismatic leaders have a long history of overriding legislatures, judiciaries, constitutions and the like. It's unimportant how they obtained their powers in the first place, whether by divine right, military coup, mob action, plebiscite or whatever. It's often done in the name of the "people" but, ""One man, one vote -- one time", as someone said about politics in the middle east. I think it could happen here too.
In 1951, the Constitution was amended to place a two-term limit on the Presidency. This was partially done in response to FDR's "too long at the fair" quadruple elections to office. It weakened the hold that any individual could have on the highest office. Would that amendment pass today, I wonder?
Gotta run ...
--
I, Beagle CMXIV
|
|
|
Posts:
20
Registered:
5/24/08
|
|
(84 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 28, 2008 11:21 PM
|
nightshades write...
> And tell me what is the difference between the people
> and the states? Who do you think that the states
> are? Individual entities unto themselves? They
> are the people, because without the people (as stupid
> as many think they are) the states wouldn't exist.
When the Constitution was adopted "the states" meant each state legislature. In the eyes of the Founders "the people" and "the states" were in fact two separate entities. This can be seen in the Great Compromise. The House of Representatives was "the Peoples' House", to quote Gerald Ford. It was the only body elected directly by the people and its membership was apportioned by population. The Senate represented the states. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures each was apportioned two Senators each.
Electors to the Electoral College are chosen in any manner each "state", meaning the state legislature, chooses. A case in point. In 1788, 1792, and 1796 Pennsylvania chose it's electors by direct popular vote. In 1800 the Federalist controlled legislature realizing that Thomas Jefferson would win in Pennsylvania and the state's 15 electoral votes, chose to appoint the electors themselves. They chose 8 Republican, that was the name of Jefferson's party then, electors and 7 Federalist electors. The people chose nothing! If any legislature chose to do so today, and could get their governor to sign the bill, it would all be perfectly legal.
|
|
|
Posts:
168
Registered:
9/14/07
|
|
(83 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 28, 2008 1:19 PM
|
For your information Beagle the following:
How Hitler Became a Dictator
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted June 28, 2004
Whenever U.S. officials wish to demonize someone, they inevitably compare him to Adolf Hitler. The message immediately resonates with people because everyone knows that Hitler was a brutal dictator.
But how many people know how Hitler actually became a dictator? My bet is, very few. I?d also bet that more than a few people would be surprised at how he pulled it off, especially given that after World War I Germany had become a democratic republic.
The story of how Hitler became a dictator is set forth in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, on which this article is based.
In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:
Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler?s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, ?We?re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.?
Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:
Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent
Thus, even though Hitler?s vote total had risen, he still had been decisively rejected by the German people.
On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an ?unexpected and ludicrous figure.? Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months.
Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany, did everything they could to create chaos in the streets, including initiating political violence and murder. The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.
Even though Hitler had badly lost the presidential election, he was drawing ever-larger crowds during the congressional election. As Shirer points out,
In one day, July 27, he spoke to 60,000 persons in Brandenburg, to nearly as many in Potsdam, and that evening to 120,000 massed in the giant Grunewald Stadium in Berlin while outside an additional 100,000 heard his voice by loudspeaker.
Hitler?s rise to power
The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler?s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany?s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.
On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. Otto von Meissner, who worked for Hindenburg, later testified at Nuremberg,
Hindenburg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.
Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.
Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks, Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor. Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag, however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.
On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.
The Reichstag fire
One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out,
Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People?s Court, which, as Shirer points out,
soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.
One of the Reichstag terrorist defendants, who had angered Goering during the trial with a severe cross-examination of Goering, did not benefit from his acquittal. Shirer explains:
The German communist leader was immediately taken into ?protective custody,? where he remained until his death during the second war.
In addition to the People?s Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or ?insidious attacks against the government.? These courts
consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.
Even lenient treatment by the Special Court was no guarantee for the defendant, however, as Pastor Martin Niemoeller discovered when he was acquitted of major political charges and sentenced to time served for minor charges. Leaving the courtroom, Niemoeller was taken into custody by the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp.
The Nazis also implemented a legal concept called Schutzhaft or ?protective custody? which enabled them to arrest and incarcerate people without charging them with a crime. As Shirer put it,
Protective custody did not protect a man from possible harm, as it did in more civilized countries. It punished him by putting him behind barbed wire.
On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died, and the title of president was abolished. Hitler?s title became Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Not surprisingly, he used the initial four-year ?temporary? grant of emergency powers that had been given to him by the Enabling Act to consolidate his omnipotent control over the entire country.
Accepting the new order
Oddly enough, even though his dictatorship very quickly became complete, Hitler returned to the Reichstag every four years to renew the ?temporary? delegation of emergency powers that it had given him to deal with the Reichstag-arson crisis. Needless to say, the Reichstag rubber-stamped each of his requests.
For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn?t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.
Keep in mind also that, while the Nazis established concentration camps in the 1930s, the number of inmates ranged in the thousands. It wouldn?t be until the 1940s that the death camps and the gas chambers that killed millions would be implemented. Describing how the average German adapted to the new order, Shirer writes,
The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.
Sound familiar? It should. Seems overall even the people of Germany got it right the first time. Unfortunately there is always someone who thinks they know more than the majority.
|
|
|
Posts:
168
Registered:
9/14/07
|
|
(82 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 28, 2008 9:51 AM
|
"Shades of Adolp Hitler". Hitler was never ever elected chancellor of Germany by the german people. He was appointed by the ruling party. (By the way Hitler never trusted the judgment of the people of Germany either.)
And tell me what is the difference between the people and the states? Who do you think that the states are? Individual entities unto themselves? They are the people, because without the people (as stupid as many think they are) the states wouldn't exist.
|
|
|
Posts:
20
Registered:
5/24/08
|
|
(81 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral vo
May 28, 2008 9:20 AM
|
Beagle,
I'm glad you are back. When you said you were exhausted I was afraid you signed off. I feel that our debate was conducted at higher level than much of the tripe below. Welcome back.
Beagle wrote:
> The States elect the President; not the people
> as a whole. This is fundamental to our
> Constitutional process.
This is technically true. The Constitution does not contend that the people of the several states have a right to vote for President and VP, or even to vote for electors. In fact is says that the states can choose their electors in any manner of their choosing. If a state legislature chose to award their electors on the basis of a Tiddly Winks contest it is entirely legal for them to do so.
And...
> The Office of President does Not represent all
> of the people: that is entirely contrary to our
> Constitution.
Since all of the states have chosen to award their electors on the basis of the popular vote in their state then the President and VP are in practice representatives of the people.
And...
> The President is the executor of legislative actions
> approved by Congress (Senate and House of
> Representatives), along with being Commander-in-Chief
> of the military and the primary director of the
> various Federal departments of foreign policy and
> domestic affairs,
While that is no doubt what the Founders intended every President claims a mandate from the people to deliver on campaign promises.
And...
> The Presidential Office is encumbered by the
> Legislative and Judicial branches of our government
> -- that is to say, our system of checks and
> balances.
True. But, it is reasonable to assume that any President could find a friendly Congressman or Senator to introduce legislation and then be able to use his influence to guide that legislation through Congress. I guess you could say he is the Lobbyist-in-Chief.
And...
> If the President were beholden only to the popular
> nationwide vote of the majority, what would prevent
> that person from initiating plebiscites to validate
> any chosen action?
The very Constitution we have today. Even the most controversial action of the 21st Century, the Iraq war, required congressional approval. (Yes, I am guilty of hyperbole here)
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(80 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral vo
May 28, 2008 2:02 AM
|
The States elect the President; not the people as a whole. This is fundamental to our Constitutional process.
The Office of President does Not represent all of the people: that is entirely contrary to our Constitution.
The President is the executor of legislative actions approved by Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), along with being Commander-in-Chief of the military and the primary director of the various Federal departments of foreign policy and domestic affairs.
The Presidential Office is encumbered by the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government -- that is to say, our system of checks and balances.
If the President were beholden only to the popular nationwide vote of the majority, what would prevent that person from initiating plebiscites to validate any chosen action?
Shades of Huey P. Long, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and going all the way back to Pericles loom.
Beware ...
--
I, Beagle CMXIV
|
|
|
Posts:
168
Registered:
9/14/07
|
|
(79 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 27, 2008 3:15 PM
|
No the electoral voting system does not exist for the reasons of protecting the less populated states. Look it up. If that were the case, the more densely populated states would have fewer electoral votes than the less populated ones, they don't, they have more.
The presidential candidate is not to represent any one region or section of the population, but the population as a whole regardless of where they live. It is not representative of any local, regional, or state governments, nor was it designed to be. To think that the election might be won by voters in any one or two states, and that all of a sudden the federal government is going to get a screwed up as some of them are at the state level is real fantasy. Trust me, Washington needs no help screwing things up, they do just fine on their own.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
5/27/08
|
|
(78 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 27, 2008 2:56 PM
|
No - the Electorial College exists so states that are less populated have an equal say in who gets elected President - can you imagine if California and New York elected all our presidents? Please, look at the mess they have made of their own states!!!
I wish the dems and libs would quit trying to rewrite the 2000 election - if you know the law and the election rules it was handled correctly in Florida - maybe their time would be better spent trying to educate themselves as to how an election is run and quit trying to control the outcome of all of them.
AlGore was the only one trying to steal the votes - what a class act he was when he tried to get the military vote not to count. Also, his environmental hoax is sickening.
I think the majority of Hollywood is made up of people who either dropped out of school or were educated at liberal institutions so it stinks that they keep trying to brainwash the rest of us as to what they think really happened in 2000.
Enough already. You are all delusional. Wake up!
|
|
|
Posts:
168
Registered:
9/14/07
|
|
(77 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 27, 2008 2:12 PM
|
I don't believe the point of the movie was to show either party in a bad light, but to show the american voter how with the electoral voting system the election of a president can go seriously wrong.
It's not a matter of who won, but who lost, and the losers weren't either candidate, but the american people.
There needs to be federal standards set for the election of a president, since the office is supposed to represent the will of the people of the entire nation. Florida's state voting standards disenfranchised many voters. The very act is contrary to the major premise that this country was founded on, and the main reason that independence from England was sought in the first place. "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION"
I would say that many voters in the state of Florida, didn't feel represented for one reason or another. Are they less than any other voter in this country? I think not.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
5/26/08
|
|
(76 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral vo
May 27, 2008 2:02 PM
|
Gore WON the election for President of the United States in 2000.
That's the year the Republicans turned the USA into a fraud.
_______________________________________________
obladioblada, it must really keep you up at night knowing that a rich frat boy drunk slacker (Democrats words not mine) beat an up tight liberal genius (definitely not my words) who was programmed sense he was a child to be president by his rich democrat racist father (voted against the Republicans on the civil rights act) to be president.......Damn I love this country.
--
Edited by LogicalThinking at 05/27/2008 11:10 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
5/26/08
|
|
(75 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 27, 2008 1:58 PM
|
I agree with you Jimmah, HBO accomplished what it set out to do. It helped continue the myth that the Republicans stole the 2000 elections and the Democrats were just looking out for the minority, old, and little people. And I am sure they will make another movie about how the Democrats are trying to not count the votes of "minority, old, and little people" in Florida and Michigan this election year. Of course I will not hold my breath for that one.
Two more things before I go:
1. If the Democrats would have really wanted "The Peoples Votes" to count, they would have asked for a full state recount and not just heavily Democrat counties. But I'm sure this was just an oversite.
2. After the recount ended, several news papers and other (liberal) organizations held their own recount and everytime GWB won (and even larger margin). But even with that information out there to the public, Democrats and thier media friends (HBO) continue to spread the lie about the mean ol Republicans stealing the 2000 election.
--
Edited by LogicalThinking at 05/27/2008 11:11 AM PDT
--
Edited by LogicalThinking at 05/27/2008 11:12 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
5/26/08
|
|
(74 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral vo
May 27, 2008 1:50 PM
|
|
Time will vindicate GWB. Just like time will cast a very dark shadow over the Clinton years and all of the harm they have brought to this great country. We already see it with the media abandoning the Clinton's for Obama. Pretty soon they will quite covering for all of Clinton's failures and corrupt activities of the 90's.
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
5/26/08
|
|
(73 of 252)
Re: Should the President be elected by popular vote instead of electoral votes?
May 27, 2008 1:47 PM
|
|
If we went by "the popular vote" we would have never had The Disgraced on Bill Clinton. So watch what you wish for.......
|
|
|
|
|
