Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > tickles4us > tickles |
Is It Time?
|
Is It Time? Do you think it is time to change from an Electoral College system to a Popular Vote or Majority Vote type system here in the United States? Warning some quotes have been modified to prevent funny faces from showing up but I don't promise to have got all of them especially in the links.  The Electoral College system does pretty well and was certainly a good system back in the early days of the nation but it is/was truly representative government. Back then the voter actually voted for the elector (their trusted local representative) who then went on to cast his vote after careful consideration, for the actual president and or vice president. The local voter relied on the elector to decide who was best to be president. Check out the The Connecticut Compromise and The Three-Fifths Compromise to get an understanding of how the House and Senate was brought about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise from, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) Background The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South: There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections. The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787. Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. No one who is an elector can be a U.S. officeholder, so none of the electors would be immediately beholden to a given presidential candidate. Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives were to choose the president, and the Senate the vice president, selecting among the top five candidates, ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism. Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors," neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. The phrase was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors." Evolution to the general ticket Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated tasks." The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district." In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president. Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate. So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities." Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election. When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station of president." According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay, The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket many years later. The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president. Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823. Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors. Fourteenth Amendment Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for a state's representation in the House of Representatives to be reduced if a state unconstitutionally denies people the right to vote. The reduction is in keeping with the proportion of people denied a vote. This amendment refers to voting "at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States;" the only place in the Constitution mentioning electors being selected by popular vote. On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said: "The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive." end of quote. Most of the time it works out well but not always. As was seen in this latest election and in others, five in particular actually, where the popular vote was in disagreement with the outcome of the Electoral College it seems this system may need to be updated yet again to reflect the different conditions. The Electoral College gives more influence to the smaller states with lower populations then they would get through a Majority Vote system. The Electoral College for all states but two (Nebraska and Maine whom use a proportionate system that is not fairly divided) give all their delegate or electoral college "electors" points to whomever is the majority winner in that state. This can be an issue when you have many states that are close to even on the vote count. It will result in states with high elector counts giving all their electors/votes to the winner even though that winner just barely won. Essentially millions of votes get thrown out, at least in those states larger than Vermont where we only have about 500,000 people of voting age. What about when the margin is larger, should the voters who cast a vote for the Republican nominee in a state where the overwhelming majority of the voters vote Democratic not have their vote counted? Or vice versa? So what it amounts to is everyone that voted in a state, Democrat or Republican, that had a slightly higher count of Republican votes gets their vote counted as Republican as far as the Electoral College is concerned. Or vice versa. That's why you have these situations where the Electoral College and the popular vote count don't say the same thing or elect the same candidate. But it is the Electoral College that determines the election unless it is too close then it goes to other contingencies. Did you know that it used to be that the Electoral College voted on the selection of not only the president but the vice president as well. Originally it was a system where the runner up was the vice president. That could mean the president and vice president could be from different parties. It changed over time though and as things got complicated when the various parties developed. When there wasn't a clear winner as in the election of 1800 the decision went to the House of Representatives. from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president, and also nominated Aaron Burr for vice president. After the election, Jefferson and Burr both obtained a majority of electoral votes, but tied one another with 73 votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party's first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the House of Representatives pursuant to the Constitution's contingency election provision. Having already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the lame duck House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition and attempted to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (the votes of nine states were needed for an election). Jefferson achieved electoral victory on the 36th ballot, but only after Federalist Party leader Alexander Hamilton – who disfavored Burr's personal character more than Jefferson's policies – had made known his preference for Jefferson. Responding to the problems from those elections, the Congress proposed the Twelfth Amendment in 1803 – prescribing electors cast separate ballots for president and vice president – to replace the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. By June 1804, the states had ratified the amendment in time for the 1804 election. end quote. Would you like to have separate elections for president and vice president that could result in them being from different parties? from, archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270 How did we get the Electoral College? The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process. Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States. What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system? Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election. The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections). end of quote. 1824 This was an interesting race, it was the only time the candidate with the most electoral college votes and he also had the most popular votes didn't get the presidency. It was decided by the House of Representatives and included a bit of controversy or should I say corruption or maybe bribery or perhaps a bit of bargaining. See the link below to find out who got shafted and who won. It may not be good to have to many candidates running. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824 1876 This was another one where an interesting deal was made to give the election to the one who didn't get the majority of the popular vote and it is questionable whether he got the majority of the Electoral College votes either but see for yourself and go to the link below. Bargains galore in politics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876 1888 This one wasn't particularly interesting but it did involve the Mugwumps. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1888 2000 I think we all remember what happened in the 2000 election  A recount that got cut short by a controversial supreme court decision. It was a squeaker and again one in which the third party candidate likely cost the Democrat the election in this case.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore There were several states in this last election where there was only about 1-4 percent or less difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Some of those states had Gary Johnson getting this 1-4 percent difference or more of the vote. Did Gary Johnson end up being the determining factor in the outcome of this election? from, archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. end quote. from, history.com/topics/electoral-college When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 54, for a total of 538. SUMMARY Aside from Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution, anyone may serve as an elector. In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 53  is required to win. If no candidate receives a majority, then the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President is elected by the Senate, a process known as contingent election.CONSTIITUTIONAL ORIGINS The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods of electing the President, including selection by Congress, by the governors of the states, by the state legislatures, by a special group of Members of Congress chosen by lot, and by direct popular election. Late in the convention, the matter was referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate (two to each state, the “senatorial” electors) and its delegation in the House of Representatives (currently ranging from one to 52 Members). The electors are chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct “(U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1). Qualifications for the office are broad: the only persons prohibited from serving as electors are Senators, Representatives, and persons “holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.” In order to forestall partisan intrigue and manipulation, the electors assemble in their respective states and cast their ballots as state units, rather than meet at a central location. At least one of the candidates for whom the electors vote must be an inhabitant of another state. A majority of electoral votes is necessary to elect, a requirement intended to insure broad acceptance of a winning candidate, while election by the House was provided as a default method in the event of electoral college deadlock. Finally, Congress was empowered to set nationwide dates for choice and meeting of electors. All the foregoing structural elements of the electoral college system remain in effect currently. The original method of electing the President and Vice President, however, proved unworkable, and was replaced by the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804. Under the original system, each elector cast two votes for President (for different candidates), and no vote for Vice President. The votes were counted; the candidate receiving the most, provided it was a majority of the number of electors, was elected President, and the runner-up became Vice President. The 12th Amendment replaced this system with separate ballots for President and Vice President, with electors casting a single vote for each office. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE TODAY Notwithstanding the founders’ efforts, the electoral college system almost never functioned as they intended, but, as with so many constitutional provisions, the document prescribed only the system’s basic elements, leaving ample room for development. As the republic evolved, so did the electoral college system, and, by the late 19 century, the th following range of constitutional, federal and state legal, and political elements of the contemporary system were in place. Allocation of Electors and Electoral Votes The Constitution gives each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (currently ranging from one to 52, depending on population). The 23rd Amendment provides an additional three electors to the District of Columbia. The number of electoral votes per state thus currently ranges from three (for seven states and D.C.) to 54 for California, the most populous state. The total number of electors each state gets are adjusted following each decennial census in a process called reapportionment, which reallocates the number of Members of the House of Representatives to reflect changing rates of population growth (or decline) among the states. Thus, a state may gain or lose electors following reapportionment, but it always retains its two “senatorial” electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation.Popular Election of Electors Today, all presidential electors are chosen by the voters, but, in the early republic, more than half the states chose electors in their legislatures, thus eliminating any direct involvement by the voting public in the election. This practice changed rapidly after the turn of the nineteenth century, however, as the right to vote was extended to an ever-wider segment of the population. As the electorate continued to expand, so did the number of persons able to vote for presidential electors, to its present limit of all eligible citizens age 18 or older. The tradition that the voters choose the presidential electors thus became an early and permanent feature of the electoral college system, and, while it should be noted that states still theoretically retain the constitutional right to choose some other method, this is extremely unlikely. The existence of the presidential electors and the duties of the electoral college are so little noted in contemporary society that most American voters believe that they are voting directly for a President and Vice President on election day. Although candidates for elector may be well known persons, such as governors, state legislators, or other state and local officials, they generally do not receive public recognition as electors. In fact, in most states, the names of individual electors do not appear anywhere on the ballot; instead only those of the various candidates for President and Vice President appear, usually prefaced by the words “electors for.” Moreover, electoral votes are commonly referred to as having “been awarded” to the winning candidate, as if no human beings were involved in the process. The Electors: Ratifying the Voter’s Choice Presidential electors in contemporary elections are expected, and, in many cases pledged, to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors, weighing the merits of competing presidential candidates, they have been regarded as agents of the public will since the first decade under the Constitution. They are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election. Nominating Elector-Candidates: Diverse State Procedures Nomination of elector-candidates is another of the many aspects of this system left to state and political party preferences. Most states prescribe one of two methods: 34 states require that candidates for the office of presidential elector be nominated by state party conventions, while a further ten mandate nomination by the state party’s central committee. The remaining states use a variety of methods, including nomination by the governor (on recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the party’s presidential nominee. Joint Tickets: One Vote for President and Vice President General election ballots, which are regulated by state election laws and authorities, offer voters joint candidacies for President and Vice President for each political party or other group. Thus, voters cast a single vote for electors pledged to the joint ticket of the party they represent. They cannot effectively vote for a President from one party and a Vice President from another, unless their state provides for write-in votes. end quote. Were you aware that the determination of citizenship by "Right of Birth" was not an original part of the constitution? It was actually added in response to concerns about the former slave population being counted as citizens and thereby affecting the count of electors in the presidential election process. It was a part of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868. It was the Republican party that pushed for the Fourteenth Amendment. It is interesting how the terms Republican and Democrat have changed there meanings or at least what they represent over the years. from, http://HotMatch.com.com The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 On this date, the House overrode President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 with near unanimous Republican support, 122 to 41, marking the first time Congress legislated upon civil rights. First introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the bill mandated that "all persons born in the United States," with the exception of American Indians, were "hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The legislation granted all citizens the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.” To Radical Republicans, who believed the federal government had a role in shaping a multiracial society in the postwar South, the measure seemed the next logical step after the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 18, 1865 (which abolished slavery). Representative Henry Raymond of New York noted that the legislation was “one of the most important bills ever presented to this House for its action.” President Johnson disagreed with the level of federal intervention implied by the legislation, calling it “another step, or rather a stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the national Government” in his veto message. The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 proved to be the opening salvo of the showdown between the 39th Congress (1865–1867) and the President over the future of the former Confederacy and African-American civil rights. end quote. Yes Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, from Tennessee. It was quite a few years yet before the Native Americans got similar protections. Not that even these acts made things equal by any means. The "Civil Rights Act of 1866" tried to make the playing field fairer but it has been a long history of "acts" and legislation since and we still are dealing with discrimination in many forms. Other civil rights legislation Civil Rights Act of 1866 Civil Rights Act of 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1968 Civil Rights Act of 1991 Employment Non-Discrimination Act Equal Pay Act of 1963 Equality Act of 2015 Enforcement Act of 1870 First Enforcement Act of 1871 Second Enforcement Act of 1871 Lodge Bill Reconstruction Acts Voting Rights Act of 1965 american-historama.org/1866-1881-reconstruction-era/civil-rights-act-of-1866-text.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Apportionment_of_Representatives from, loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html On June 2, 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote, however, was governed by state law; until 1957, some states barred Native Americans from voting. end quote. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution history.com/this-day-in-history/13th-amendment-ratified en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford from, loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/15thamendment.html The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote. end quote. from, archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270 What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration? If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified. The Constitution also directs Congress to determine by law a successive line of service to be called upon in the unlikely occurrence that both the President-elect and Vice President-elect fail to qualify by the beginning of the presidential term. Accordingly, federal law (3 U.S.C. Sec. 19) states that, in order, the following would be required, if qualified and, for Cabinet secretaries, if having been confirmed by advice and consent of the Senate, to act as President until such a time as a President has qualified: the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President pro tempore of the Senate the Secretary of State the Secretary of the Treasury the Secretary of Defense the Attorney General the Secretary of the Interior the Secretary of Agriculture the Secretary of Commerce the Secretary of Labor the Secretary of Health and Human Services the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development the Secretary of Transportation the Secretary of Energy the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs end quote. Wow did you actually read all the way to hear.        Vive La Difference |
||||
|
I can't help wondering how different everything would be if Bernie ......
| |||
|
 I thought the Electoral College was put in place to keep a freak running on a populous agenda (like Trump) from being elected.  It is a nice thought to think about how if the popular vote were counted, that we wouldn't have ended up with Trump. .. But then we wouldn't have had Bush either. .. How great would that have been? Tallying the vote from around the country hasn't always been as easy as it is nowadays. ... But so much about elections and electioneering is different now too. Obama was the first to really use technology and get into the nitty gritty details of exactly which voters to target. .. Now we can practically watch on a map as reports come in from every single county in the nation. I've heard that the EC can still change its vote. And while I believe that, I don't think it is very likely and would only result in more chaos. If I was to go looking for someone to blame for Clinton losing, I would look at the DNC, for making sure she was the nominee in the first place. .. The party elites will always try to shape and influence this country.
| |||
|
Someone complained about me using wikipedia for sources so I gave wiki and other sources in this post. I find that the wikipedia sources often tend to include more explanatory information that make it easier to understand or more comprehensive information. But all in all they pretty much say the same things though one has more details in some areas and the other in others. So you may see some repetitiveness. Hmmm, I wonder if it would be wise to find Trump unqualified to assume the presidency especially seeing as he is causing TREMENDOUS disruption here and everywhere. You cannot conceive the many without the one.
| |||
|
yes is the short answer. You cannot conceive the many without the one.
| |||
|
I guess the Electoral College system came about at the behest of the states. And I guess it makes it easier for candidates to camopaign in that they can just target swing states rather than trying to reach everybody. The system works though if the winner doesn't have the majority and especially the most votes then it can be criticised for being unrepresentative. Here in the UK are general elections are even more unrepresentative; there have been a few times that the winning party has the most seats in the House of Commons but less votes cast than the losing party. 
| |||
|
Do you think it is time to change from an Electoral College system to a Popular Vote or Majority Vote type system here in the United States? Yes, the EC is antiquated and subverts the peoples will. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| |||
|
It's not likely the Republicans will want to eliminate the Electoral College as they have been the ones winning by it's decisions lately. Vive La Difference
| |||
|
Oops, I misspelled here.  Vive La Difference
| |||
|
Someone complained about me using wikipedia for sources so I gave wiki and other sources in this post. I find that the wikipedia sources often tend to include more explanatory information that make it easier to understand or more comprehensive information. But all in all they pretty much say the same things though one has more details in some areas and the other in others. So you may see some repetitiveness. Hmmm, I wonder if it would be wise to find Trump unqualified to assume the presidency especially seeing as he is causing TREMENDOUS disruption here and everywhere. Vive La Difference
|
Become a member to create a blog
