There is more than one reason to do a recount...
|
Posted:Nov 27, 2016 10:19 am
Last Updated:Dec 7, 2016 9:42 am
10987 Views
|
It isn't just to be sure the results are accurate but to be sure the results weren't hacked in some way. If the results of the election were effected by hacking the machines or some part of the system isn't it essential to discover this break in security and take actions to prevent it in the future or would you prefer to have the hackers deciding who the president and your "elected" representatives are in the future?
If a recount isn't done most states do essentially nothing to actually verify the results of the voting machines tabulations. Yes some machines have a self check system but that can be hacked just as easy as the rest of the machine.
Some states like Ohio actually have no paper trail to do a proper verification of the outcome. If a voting machine, which is a computer whether it is a simple optical scanner or a touchscreen paperless machine with no paper ballot is hacked as all computers can be, then the only way to prove it has been hacked is by manualy recounting the paper ballots. I'm personally of the opinion all voting should be done by easily verifiable means that can be accessed at anytime down the road as needed and that all elections should be checked for accuracy by a manual paper recount as needed.
Do you think all the hacks of the emails and the voter registration offices was just for fun? Do you think it may have been a distraction device to draw your attention away from the real goal of hacking key areas with close margins to effect the outcome of the election? It certainly kept the FBI and other government offices busy tracking down who was doing the hacking of the emails but were they watching the back door?
The links below go to some interesting stories on this subject.
revealnews.org/blog/meet-the-security-expert-telling-clinton-to-contest-the-election/
put an "at" in the gap
medium.com/ jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.z4t3xqdgc
|
|
|
11
Comments
|
|
Anyone seen a turkey running about?
|
Posted:Nov 24, 2016 1:28 am
Last Updated:Jul 27, 2019 6:45 am
10627 Views
|
I was going to do my turkey in this morning but when I went out to get him his pen was empty. I noticed some tracks in the snow though and went back in and got my flashlight to investigate as it was a bit dark out. Sure enough there were tracks leading up to the pen and they came to a stop by the latch. The latch had been chewed through and there were turkey tracks and rabbit tracks leading away from the pen.
Thinking back to earlier last evening I seem to remember thinking I heard a drum beating.
I wonder who could have set my turkey free?
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
What Do You Think....
|
Posted:Nov 24, 2016 12:48 am
Last Updated:Dec 6, 2016 4:08 pm
10578 Views
|
about all these people on the radio and TV shows telling people what they should be thankful for and that you should be thankful/grateful for this or that...
I heard a piece or two of a radio program talking about how people should be grateful for this or that etc. I found it somewhat irritating in the way the parts that I heard were going. I think thankful is a more appropriate word for thanksgiving then grateful.
Maybe it is just semantics but grateful is slightly different than thankful to me.
What do you think?
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
Why do you think Trump is paying his way out...
|
Posted:Nov 18, 2016 11:09 pm
Last Updated:Nov 24, 2016 9:16 pm
11229 Views
|
of his university woes?
I think it is because he doesn't want the situation to be used to start impeachment proceedings.
Not that he is a crooked businessman or anything like that Right!
|
|
|
8
Comments
|
|
The List is Getting Even More impressive...
|
Posted:Nov 15, 2016 5:22 pm
Last Updated:Nov 21, 2016 12:57 am
12695 Views
|
Jeff Sessions as attorney general... or maybe the secretary of defense.
Sessions has a hard on for the illegal alien issue and he has shown a lack of interest in the past in prosecuting civil rights cases to say the least. Isn't that someone you want in the attorney generals office though I don't think he should be the secretary of defense either. He really ought to be unemployed in my opinion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions
Rudy Giuliani as secretary of state...
All I can say is after Giuliani's misrepresentation of the facts on national TV during the election process he has no business as an attorney general though he has made it clear he wants the secretary of state job as his reward for his lies and crap in support of Trumps campaign. I think he ought to go home and shut the fuck up.
Yep Trump is surrounding himself with the faithful even if they are not fit for the job. Rewarding them and ignoring the ones who didn't support him or actually spoke against him. Not that Trump is a petty little bitch or anything.
|
|
|
13
Comments
|
|
Oh Yea, Look at the Deal We're Getting...
|
Posted:Nov 15, 2016 9:47 am
Last Updated:Nov 17, 2016 10:18 pm
11371 Views
|
So the Electoral College elected Trump. That's right not the people the Electoral College.
Trump wants to get his whole family involved in the presidency so he wants to get them all top secret clearances. So they can all be privy to the information he gets and to help advise him on decisions. Well that might actually be good in a way as he certainly isn't fit to be making these decisions all by himself. But then again there is a saying I've heard... The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
I wonder if Trump is showing the beginning signs of Alzheimer's disease or is he just getting senile? Have you noticed he wonders off on side tracks? Probably just the ADHD.
Go show your support for minorities and get a taco bowl. 
|
|
|
7
Comments
|
|
Should We Judge Someone By...
|
Posted:Nov 14, 2016 10:11 pm
Last Updated:Nov 29, 2016 11:09 am
11553 Views
|
The things they say?
The things they do?
The Company they keep?
If someone speaks racist, prejudiced,sexist language should we think they might believe and act on those type of thoughts?
If someone displays through their actions that they think racist, prejudicial, sexist behavior is acceptable should we think they might be a racist, sexist?
If someone chooses their company or cohorts who are known to be racist, sexist and prejudiced should we think they just might actually be a racist, sexist prejudiced pig?
What do you think about Trumps choices so far in life?
What do you think about how Trump ran his campaign? What did you think about him saying the campaign got/was really nasty! As though he wasn't the one that made it that way.
What do you think about Trumps choice of Stephen K. Bannon as his senior counselor and chief West Wing strategist?
|
|
|
12
Comments
|
|
Heard an interesting story on VPR today...
|
Posted:Nov 12, 2016 10:24 pm
Last Updated:Nov 14, 2016 10:27 pm
12269 Views
|
It was about laughter. You may have noticed on NPR how they often tie several stories together and that is what they did today. The parts I heard (I don't know if I heard the beginning or started listening part way through) started with laughter on sitcom shows or was it about whether animals laugh? I forget which came first... probably the animals. It was an interesting story or series of stories.
So do you think animals laugh? Many people don't think much about it at all. Others study these kind of things, some with tax payer dollars. Do you think tax payer dollars should be spent on studying things like whether or not animals laugh or do you just not give a shit about such frivolous shit? It seems many in the scientific community have come to learn that to come to a conclusion that animals laugh is a no no. It seems there is a community that thinks that thinking that an animal can laugh is too close to making them human like. After all, we all know that only humans and angels can experience things like emotions isn't that Right. We wouldn't want to think that an animal could experience an emotion would we... Right. What would that mean to the world? That a mere animal could experience the emotional range of feelings that a human could... why that would be lifting them above the mere level of having been put there for the use of man.
(I was looking up the spelling for a word just a moment ago and when I turned on my spell checker gadget it popped up the new word feature as it does and showed "resurrect", sometimes I wonder about how it comes up with things.  Anyhow... )
I wonder where that ideology could have come from? Below is from the 1611 King James Version of a "familiar" book.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring foorth aboundantly the mouing creature that hath life, and foule that may flie aboue the earth in the open firmament of heauen.
21 And God created great whales, and euery liuing creature that moueth, which the waters brought forth aboundantly after their kinde, and euery winged foule after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth.
23 And the euening and the morning were the fift day.
24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the liuing creature after his kinde, cattell, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kinde: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kinde, and cattell after their kinde, and euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.
26 ¶ And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth.
Did you notice it says "in our Image, after our likenesse" and lest we forget "dominion over...fish... foule... cattell... all the earth... every creeping thing..."
Chapter 1
27 So God created man in his owne Image, in the Image of God created hee him; male and female created hee them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.
29 ¶ And God said, Behold, I haue giuen you euery herbe bearing seede, which is vpon the face of all the earth, and euery tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yeelding seed, to you it shall be for meat:
Every tree?
30 And to euery beast of the earth, and to euery foule of the aire, and to euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, wherein there is life, I haue giuen euery greene herbe for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw euery thing that hee had made: and behold, it was very good. And the euening and the morning were the sixth day.
Chapter 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a liuing soule.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden Eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow euery tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and euill.
15 And the LORD God tooke the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dresse it, and to keepe it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of euery tree of the garden thou mayest freely eate.
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and euill, thou shalt not eate of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an helpe meet for him.
19 And out of þe ground the LORD God formed euery beast of the field, and euery foule of the aire, and brought them vnto Adam, to see what he would call them: and whatsoeuer Adam called euery liuing creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gaue names to all cattell, and to the foule of the aire, and to euery beast of the fielde: but for Adam there was not found an helpe meete for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deepe sleepe to fall vpon Adam, and hee slept; and he tooke one of his ribs, and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof.
22 And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made hee a woman, & brought her vnto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shalbe called woman, because shee was taken out of man.
24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and his mother, and shall cleaue vnto his wife: and they shalbe one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man & his wife, and were not ashamed.
Chapter 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtill then any beast of the field, which the LORD God had made, and he said vnto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of euery tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said vnto the serpent, Wee may eate of the fruite of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shal not eate of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the Serpent said vnto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
5 For God doeth know, that in the day ye eate thereof, then your eyes shalbee opened: and yee shall bee as Gods, knowing good and euill.
Oh that sneaky snake! Enticing poor Eve...
6 And when the woman saw, that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she tooke of the fruit thereof, and did eate, and gaue also vnto her husband with her, and hee did eate.
Enlightenment? Beguilement... Deception...
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, & they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge leaues together, and made themselues aprons.
Shame...
8 And they heard the voyce of the LORD God, walking in the garden in the coole of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselues from the presence of the LORD God, amongst the trees of the garden.
They learned their lessons well... Shame... fear....
9 And the LORD God called vnto Adam, and said vnto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden: and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid my selfe.
11 And he said, Who told thee, that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldest not eate?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gauest to be with mee, shee gaue me of the tree, and I did eate.
Blame...Enticement...
13 And the LORD God said vnto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eate.
Well at least she was honest....
14 And the LORD God said vnto the Serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed aboue all cattel, and aboue euery beast of the field: vpon thy belly shalt thou goe, and dust shalt thou eate, all the dayes of thy life.
15 And I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy seed and her seed: it shal bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.
Does that mean someones going to get stomped on...
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorowe and thy conception. In sorow thou shalt bring forth : and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and hee shall rule ouer thee.
Boy did he ever.... See what God said about thy husband... ruling over thee.
17 And vnto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened vnto the voyce of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commaunded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eate of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake: in sorow shalt thou eate of it all the dayes of thy life.
No wonder men don't listen to their wives anymore...
18 Thornes also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee: and thou shalt eate the herbe of the field.
19 In the sweate of thy face shalt thou eate bread, till thou returne vnto the ground: for out of it wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and vnto dust shalt thou returne.
20 And Adam called his wiues name Eue, because she was the mother of all liuing.
21 Unto Adam also, and to his wife, did the LORD God make coates of skinnes, and cloathed them.
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of vs, to know good & euill. And now lest hee put foorth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eate and liue for euer:
Was this when man lost his immortality... for the bite of an apple... because he failed the test... jeez so harsh... what an authoritarian God was... And God never even gave Adam & Eve a warning of the cost of their potential disobedience... Don't you think he should have said something like "if you disobey me on my prohibition on the tree of life there will be serious consequences"  How were they to know that it should have been named the tree of lose your immortality if you eat from me?
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him foorth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence he was taken.
24 So he droue out the man: and he placed at the East of the garden of Eden, Cherubims, and a flaming sword, which turned euery way, to keepe the way of the tree of life.
So man has been looking for that garden and the tree of life ever since...
end quote.
Soon the baring and begetting began... Those horny little devils look what they started.
You better get familiar with all this if you aren't already as the Right wing is in charge now.
Well anyway to get back on track...
The practice of using laugh tracks for sitcoms versus real people and how they were chosen for the job was discussed. People were interviewed and gave samples of their laughs of course. For the shows the laughers were guided as to what types of laughs were to be used for the different situations. Having people laughing on command for the "funny" sections tends to pull you into the humor and cause you to laugh along also. Why is that?
It was discussed how people don't laugh when they are alone which seems to be somewhat true. The definition of alone may be a little different from what you think though. You see because laughter is a communication technique. It is used to communicate things found to be funny but it is also used to ease tension in a potentially dangerous situation or to put someone at ease. It can be used to communicate an interest in getting closer to someone or to express acceptance or even can indicate status like when everybody laughs harder at the bosses stupid jokes. When you are with someone and watching TV or listening to the radio or a recording or reading something and something funny occurs you laugh and usually out loud. But when you are alone you may not laugh so much or so loudly or at least differently then when there is someone there. If the TV is on and you are watching something funny or you are listening to the radio you are more likely to laugh at something funny then if you are simply thinking something funny. Laughing when the TV is on may be because you are not really alone if you are imagining someone else being there such as the TV or radio entertainer or even a character in a book.
Laughing certainly can be contagious as I'm sure you have seen before but can it actually be a contagion?
apa.org/monitor/jun06/laughing.aspx
sitcom articles/200011/the-science-laughter
They also talked about how there was a case of what appeared to be a mass hysterical laughter outbreak that started in a school in Tanzania in 1962.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_laughter_epidemic
Tanganyika laughter epidemic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tanganyika laughter epidemic of 1962 was an outbreak of mass hysteria – or mass psychogenic illness (MP – rumored to have occurred in or near the village of Kashasha on the western coast of Lake Victoria in the modern nation of Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika) near the border of Uganda.
History
The laughter epidemic began on January 30, 1962, at a mission-run boarding school for girls in Kashasha. The laughter started with three girls and spread haphazardly throughout the school, affecting 95 of the 159 pupils, aged 12–18. Symptoms lasted from a few hours to 16 days in those affected. The teaching staff were not affected but reported that students were unable to concentrate on their lessons. The school was forced to close down on March 18, 1962.
After the school was closed and the students were sent home, the epidemic spread to Nshamba, a village that was home to several of the girls. In April and May, 217 people had laughing attacks in the village, most of them being school and young adults. The Kashasha school was reopened on May 21, only to be closed again at the end of June. In June, the laughing epidemic spread to Ramashenye girls’ middle school, near Bukoba, affecting 48 girls.
The school from which the epidemic sprang was sued; the and parents transmitted it to the surrounding area. Other schools, Kashasha itself, and another village, comprising thousands of people, were all affected to some degree. Six to eighteen months after it started, the phenomenon died off. The following symptoms were reported on an equally massive scale as the reports of the laughter itself: pain, fainting, flatulence, respiratory problems, rashes, attacks of crying, and random screaming. In total 14 schools were shut down and 1000 people were affected.
Causes
Charles F. Hempelmann of Purdue University has theorized that the episode was stress-induced. In 1962 Tanganyika had just won its independence, he said, and students had reported feeling stressed because of higher expectations by teachers and parents. MPI, he says, usually occurs in people without a lot of power. "MPI is a last resort for people of a low status. It's an easy way for them to express that something is wrong."
End Quote.
Well I know I have found the late shows funny particularly since Trump started his run for the presidency. I certainly found myself laughing out loud many times, though admittedly probably not as loud as I would have been had someone else been here with me. Now I think we will be needing that laughter more and more as January gets closer. Hopefully it never gets to the point where it turns into hysterical laughter to relieve stress.
|
|
|
7
Comments
|
|
Is It Time?
|
Posted:Nov 11, 2016 2:23 am
Last Updated:Jan 11, 2017 12:32 pm
12989 Views
|
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. 
|
|
|
9
Comments
|
|
The Loser Won... Unfortunately and Oh So Sadly...
|
Posted:Nov 9, 2016 12:49 am
Last Updated:Nov 15, 2016 3:18 pm
12059 Views
|
You fools who voted for him or voted for Gary Johnson in the states that were close, and there were many will regret what you voted for soon. Stand there and watch as the economy takes hit after hit for the next several months just because he won let alone from the things he plans on doing.
The hate he has and will continue to generate may very well result in riots as the effects of this election pay out.
The standing of this country around the world will drop drastically as he makes an ass of himself and the country for having elected that baboon.
Don't be surprised when the people he puts up for the supreme court rip your rights away as an American. Freedom of the press and speech is one of the stated goals he intends to impinge upon and he can do that by selecting the candidates for the supreme court and with a republican house and senate they will likely be confirmed.
You have no idea what you have started and where this is likely to go.
|
|
|
15
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To link to this blog (tickles4us) use [blog tickles4us] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
61
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
181
|
19
|
201
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
