Actually, it might be a good thing in the long run. Just as the impeachment mess of 98-99 and the election of 2000 acted as civics lessons on how the Constitution says the government process is to work, perhaps concentration on the process would highlight that this is a constitutional republic, not an unlimited democracy.

In the short run…

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at August 11, 2004 10:00 AM

It’s not a good case.

But it’s hardly the Worst Case.

Posted by: Don at August 11, 2004 10:06 AM

I’ve gotta agree with Don here. Worst case is Kerry Wins.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 11, 2004 10:15 AM

I called this the worst case because it’s not hard to imagine a curse of Tecumseh scenario. The Electoral College ties, the election goes to the House, they elect Bush to a second term, some deeply disturbed DUpe who slept through civics class decides that Bush subverted the democratic process and takes matters into his own hands.

For me, that’s the worst-case scenario. I’d rather see a Kerry White House than go down that road.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at August 11, 2004 10:38 AM

This outcome wouldnt by definition be the worst case scenario, the candidates and thier constituents reaction to a tie would be deciding factor of how bad it all ends up. Best case is one candidate conceding unconditionally to the other and asking the nation to unite behind the winner differences be damned.

A real worst case scenario would involve millitary intervention, rioting, assinatons and eventually civil war. Then again even the most liberal or conservative person in the USA isnt about to take thier political view’s and enforce them on another American at gunpoint. (knock on wood)

Posted by: Ronin at August 11, 2004 10:44 AM

Jeff - Honestly, if I think that we get a tie, but Kerry leads the popular vote, there will be rioting if the house elects Bush for another term, and I wouldn’t blame them. Is it legal? Sure. Is it right for the house to override the wishes of the majority of Americans along partisan lines? No.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 11:26 AM

We have never elected Presidents based on a majority of the popular vote; the popular vote is meaningless. If you believe we ought to have direct election of hte President, then lobby for an amendment that says this.

If it’s a tie — and there are no unfaithful Electors, so it remains tied — the House gets to decide by a majority of the states. This is in keeping with the premise that the states actually still mean something, and that small states like Montana do not have their fates decided for them by California and New York.

This currently favors the Republicans. It might not in January, depending on how the House election goes.

However the House votes decides the issue.

Posted by: DWC at August 11, 2004 11:43 AM

Is it right for the house to override the wishes of the majority of Americans along partisan lines? No.

so then, how do you feel about the electoral college?

and the process by which a constitutional amendment is passed?

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 12:02 PM

The house favors republicans because the districts have been gerrymandered to death…But that’s not relevant, if the electoral vote is tied and everyone voted based on how their state went, that is fine, and that is more what I was referring to. However I don’t see that happening, I see all of the republicans voting for Bush over the will of the American people.

Amending the constitution (I believe you are referring to the gay marriage amendment) is far different, as it protects a minority from being steamrollered by the majority.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 12:23 PM

Lakhim

He’s talking about an ammendment to elect the pres by the popular vote, which is somewhat dissimilar to the gay marriage issue.

The whole electorate process was designed to save the public from itself in the event we make bad choices.

Also, right now I don’t think it’s clear cut enough to say how the popular vote might go. Currently MO is polled 46% to 50% for Bush, But I know that’s not how a lot of the national pollsters are spinning it.

Chads

Posted by: Chads at August 11, 2004 12:39 PM

You are all wrong. This is the worst case scenario…

“In a close race reminicent of the 2000 elections, some Democrats and Michael Moore are once again talking about disenfranchised voters.”

“Some Democrats urge that the EU election observers begin an investigation. The EU observer team has indicated that they ‘do not have the personell to initiate’ such an investigation.”

“UN and EU officials have assembled a larger coalition of investigators to send to every state. The nearly 500 election inspectors consits of officials from the permanent members of the UN Security Council nations - UK, Russia, China, and France. Aspiring members Japan and Germany were invited by the UN, but declined.”

“Republican members of the Senate are livid, stating that the UN only sent 200 inspectors into Iraq when they were looking for WMDs. This is an invasion and a premptive strike by the UN and EU, they say, to embarrass the US before UNSCAM indictments of the UN and members of the EU.”

“The election scandal has held the front pages for weeks now in the European press. In that time Iraq has disappeared from the news, even as Al Zaqawi, and Al Sadr have been killed, with even Iraqi elections unlikely to recalaim the front page.”

“After 2 months of work that began in mid-November, the EU investigators claim to be unable to make any declarations regarding the elections. The Supreme Court has however ruled that US elections are not subject to foreign powers. They are ordered to end their work, and the Justices expect to certify the results in two days.”

“Ironicly the intitial results had Kerry with the win. It is likely the situation would have still ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court, and a reversal. However, the EU investigation uncovered irregularities like registering the dead, convicts and people with similar names. These tactics, uncovered, worked against Kerry and were part of the Supreme Court’s deliberations. In the end the Democrats are the losers, even as similar tactics tarnish the Republicans, voters feel more betrayed by Democrats for use of these tacticts and calling of the EU in the first place.”

Posted by: Agrippa at August 11, 2004 12:47 PM

None of you have factored in this statement:

“The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election,” the official said. “The view of al Qaeda is ‘anybody but Bush.’ “

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 11, 2004 12:55 PM

Read the Article for yourself

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 11, 2004 01:00 PM

-*

A worst case scenario would be if we don’t keep it together and the opposition sets off a nuclear device some where.

-

Posted by: augurwell at August 11, 2004 01:13 PM

and the democrats?
take hereseth and pomeroy in sodak and nodak, resp. you don’t worry that they won’t respect their states’ election?

are you condemning the process because you feel the process is wrong or because you don’t like the result it will give? would you feel the same way 15 years ago when the dems controlled the house and had the majority of the state delegations?

i wasn’t refering to any amendment in particular - just mentioning another process that does not require a majority of its citizens to agree with in order for it to pass.

in any event, we live in a representative democracy. you don’t vote on federal law/bills. you vote on the person you want to represent you. how they arrive at their decision is up to them at that point because their constituents put them there. vote along partisan lines, along state election results, or by what the chicken bones read - it’s the system. my question is simple - is it the process or the potential result that you find distasteful?

(sorry for the delay, lakhim - work interfered…)

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 01:24 PM

Of course I worry, that is why I don’t like the way that this is currently set up, it comes down to partisan split. That isn’t right, and it shouldn’t be like that.

If the representation was fair, it would be fine, but it isn’t, there is massive under-representation of independents and an over-representation of the two major parties (More republican then democrat).

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 01:40 PM

Lakhim - “If the representation was fair, it would be fine, but it isn’t, there is massive under-representation of independents and an over-representation of the two major parties (More republican then democrat).”

More republicans then democrats - they were voted in, fair and square, get over it. Lakhim, you keep whining about the outcome based on the current split of elected officials - because it does not fit with your agenda. We all know which side of the fence you are on, but come on, you don’t want to be compared to Don, do you?

Posted by: v at August 11, 2004 02:53 PM

V -
If representation was equal to the percentage of people affiliating themselves to a party we would have 29 republican senators, 37 democratic senators and 23 independent senators, and we don’t.

(http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=212)

I don’t like either party having disproportionate representation, and I’d like to see some independents get seats in congress to bring in new ideas.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 03:05 PM

The idea of popular vote deciding President vice selection by the House clearly is without understanding that the Federal government is to be representative of the States, not the individual citizens. The 17th Ammendment (direct election of Senators) was a huge blow to this idea of federalism and, I believe, a terrible mistake.

Posted by: submandave at August 11, 2004 03:20 PM

you’re lobbying for a new system of government? maybe a parliament would suit the u.s. better than congress? vote the party, not the person?

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 03:22 PM

Sub - The state governments are supposed to be representative of the people, which they aren’t either. The entire system needs an overhaul which I don’t see happening.

Waffle - There are many good people that won’t be elected to congress just because they are of the wrong party.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 03:45 PM

Lakhim - “If representation was equal to the percentage of people affiliating themselves to a party we would have 29 republican senators, 37 democratic senators and 23 independent senators, and we don’t. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=212)

I think I’m missing something here. You want government composition to be based on polling results? Not on who people vote to represent them? Okay…… And are those 23% really independent or undecided?

BTW, I personally think parlimentary system is better then what we have here.

Posted by: v at August 11, 2004 03:58 PM

V - No, just pointing out that there is a serious disconnect between party affiliations and reality, and blatant gerrymandering is part of the problem. Yes, the 23% are independents.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 04:05 PM

rodney alexander, ralph hall, zell miller, mathew martinez, virgil goode, bob smith, michael forbes…

are they defined by a party or are they individuals?

in one poll, 77% of americans chose character and 15% chose political party as most important in a politician. see the red states of nodak and sodak with blue congress(wo)men.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=40

if the 15% are the deciding factor, switch parties. there is no rules stating that voting must be done along party lines. that is the politicians decision to do so, not the rules of the legislative branch.

i don’t think independent is a party affiliation, i think it’s the absence of party affiliation.

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 04:11 PM

that is, the 23% of independents do not hold a similar ideology that would allow them to count on each other’s support in an election…

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 04:15 PM

Waffle - I’m not saying that we’d have an ‘independent’ party, I’m saying that we would have senators from the Reform party, from the Green Party, etc.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 04:19 PM

I’m sorry, I think Lakhim must have slept through civics class.

In America we vote individual people into Congress, and not parties.

Since when has party representation among the populace ever decided anything? Since when has the popular vote ever had anything to do with who was President? Since when did these become the standard of democracy?

The United States constitution has outlasted three French republics. The British Parliament, which also elects “first past the post” instead of proportional representation, and the United States Constitution have hands down been the most successful schemes of representative government ever.

I wonder if Lakhim is aware that no President since Reagan has been elected with a majority of the popular vote? Does it bother him that Clinton served two terms “against the will of the people”, the majority of whom voted against him?

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 11, 2004 04:31 PM

The problem, Lakhim, is that you define “will of the people” as the “popular vote”, and then confuse it with “democratic legitimacy”.

Your construction of legitimacy is expressly rejected by the Constitution and has been ever since 1789. Letting the House decide the election is no more illegitmate than electing the President by the Electoral College (and is far more legitimate than the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, which is not given them in the Constitution but was invented by the Supreme Court, and awarded to itself, not long afterward).

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 11, 2004 04:35 PM

the exam process didn’t finish you off, gabriel? i thought you would be in the inebriation stage of recovery now…

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 04:36 PM

Exam starts tomorrow, wafflestomper, and continues until Tuesday.

How many Presidents have been elected by the House? Haven’t there been three or so? Wasn’t one of them Thomas Jefferson?

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 11, 2004 04:40 PM

Gabriel - Well aware of that, but it doesn’t happen that way most of the time. Honestly, most of the time the congressional districts don’t go to parties because of the people, it goes to the people because of the party that they belong to. Too many people vote straight party ticket/or have only a very rough knowledge of what each candidate stands for.

Yes, but Clinton was the person who had the most votes, and was the choice of the most people, and I am more referring to when the people give a mandate to one person, but the electoral collage is deadlocked, not when the popular vote goes to one candidate and the electoral to another. In the case of the latter, the electoral vote should win, though I would like to see that changed (we don’t need the protections given by it now), but in the former the house should respect the views of the people.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 04:57 PM

1800 and 1824 : jefferson and j. q. adams

john quincy adams had the lower popular vote and fewer electoral votes before the house decided.

almost again in 1968, but wallace and humphrey combined didn’t have enough to prevent nixon from getting the necessary votes.

interestingly, if it came to it, nixon wanted the house to vote based on the popular vote, while humphrey wanted the house to vote on the man they wanted as president (dems controlled the house).

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 05:00 PM

How many Presidents have been elected by the House?

Two. I did all the homework for you. :-) Clicky-clicky.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at August 11, 2004 05:28 PM

I’m not saying that we’d have an ‘independent’ party, I’m saying that we would have senators from the Reform party, from the Green Party, etc.

so if the green party garnered 5% of the vote, then give them 5 ‘senators’ or equivalents, etc….

where would the 5 come from? from where their greatest support came from, i.e. california gets 2 of the 5 for instance? or would a small state get a green party member thrust upon them? the answer probably throws out state distinctions in determining the makeup of this alternative congress thus making it possible for the entire congress to come from a select few states. can you imagine the pork that congress could cook up in this scenario? this kind of reasoning works only when you get rid of all state distinctions (the taxation without representation thing)

that’s the only way the system you describe works in my mind. is it simpler than what i make it?

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 06:32 PM

Also bear in mind that 5 states (Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Florida) have over 50% of the population.

Of these 5 states, Texas, is quite Republican, Florida and Illinois can go either way and California and New York are solidly democratic.

Would it be fair to let four states elect the President? That’s the “will of the people” standard.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 11, 2004 06:41 PM

Gabriel - But as you stated, it is highly unlikely that all of those states will vote en masse for one candidate. You can win the elections by winning only a few states with the electoral system in place today, but it is extremely unlikely that they all would vote for the same candidate in a non-landslide election.

Even so, you’d need an unrealistic number of people in those states voting for one candidate (80%+) in every one of those states for them to decide the election.

Waffle - You could do that on a lower basis, distributing the seats based on votes at a state level or even repeal the 17th amendment and allow state legislatures (using proportional representation there) pick the senators, keeping the regular system for house elections (but getting rid of the gerrymandered mess that most districts in the house are).

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 06:56 PM

Lakhim,

The Demoncrats Gerrymandered House control for over 50 years, until 1994.

YOUR ONLY BITCH (as is typical of Demoncrats) is that the control NOW is in Republican hands and will most likely remain that way for at least another decade, if NOT longer!

Remember, most Baby Boomers are becoming MORE and MORE Conservative and many are voting Republican as they get older.

Since the 2000 election, Baby Boomers have really begun to enter their prime voting years which will continue until their late 70’s. They have things to lose now in the Demoncrat theft schemes. They will vote their pocketbooks for decades to come.

Result…. CONSERVATIVE House members… for the most part. (Exceptions always exist, of course).

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 11, 2004 07:29 PM

Does PUTTING random words in UPPERCASE make your argument any more valid?

Remember kids, caps lock is cruse control for cool.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 07:34 PM

Hey, Lakhim, would you tell Don that? He obviously won’t listen to us… but whenever I see more than three non-proper nouns capitalized in the first sentence, I think, “Don.” And it always is Don.

Of course, I confess to a tendency to put a lot of words in bold… it’s gotten me in trouble before, especially the way this system decides to boldface things.

Just to stay on topic, http://www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html#SectionI

The Mexicans have a party proportional combined w/ first past the post system. For comparison. Not advocating.

Posted by: TBox at August 11, 2004 09:14 PM

Will do next time I see him doing it.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 09:25 PM

only 13 states have more than 10 representatives in the house. third party candidates obtaining less than 10% of the vote only have a chance at representation in these states? what if the libertarians were to come in second place in a one-representative state like montana? wouldn’t states with 2 representatives pretty much be destined to split their electorate every single year from here to eternity?

the main purpose of these questions is simply to indicate that similar representation problems still crop up. when it comes to the presidential election, wouldn’t a quicker scheme be to split the electoral college along the state vote akin to what some dems in colorado are trying to get passed? you’ve read the arguments against this proposal maybe?

when it comes to representation in the house, the bills are written to have only two possible answers: yea or nay - not multiple choice a, b, c, or d. so in partisan politics, a third party lines up with one of the major parties, anyway. a good idea having the support of the masses will be pounced on by the major parties. that’s why so little differentiates the dems and reps - both know what is popular and try not to deviate. really, what are the issues this time - stem cell research and gay rights? where are the antiwar people?-voting for prowar kerry. where are the little govt people?-voting for big govt bush. if antiwar and fiscal responsibility aren’t popular enough as issues, what do third parties have to offer?

re: gerrymandering
i wasn’t aware of major problems on the federal level, and presumed that the state level problems cancel each other out. moreover, i think the cries of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ too often replace what should only be cries of ‘more advantageous’ or ‘less advantageous’ when it comes to the division lines. (not always tho)

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 10:35 PM

what is this uppercase you speak of?

Posted by: wafflestomper at August 11, 2004 10:36 PM

Speaking of electoral votes and 5 states controlling the election (Go Texas!), i heard in some states if one side or the other gets the majority votes then when it comes time to punch in the electoral that candidate gets ALLthe electoral votes for that state, but i heard this wasnt true for every state. Somebody with more energy wanna dig up which states is which?

Posted by: Ronin at August 11, 2004 10:58 PM

Waffle - The other thing which should be done, for various reasons, is to expand the house by a few hundred. The electoral college is getting a bit silly with the weighting (some votes count 4 times as much as others in national elections) caused by the restricted house size. This would have the bonus of making the above reasonable, if running the risk of getting a bit unwieldy.

Proportional representation wouldn’t be a bad idea over all, but you’d run into the problem of fractional EV’s in the smaller states, which again could be solved by upping the number of representatives in the house.

I’d imagine it is a bad problem in the more populous states, seeing how few seats really are up for grabs/seriously contested each year.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 10:59 PM

Maine is one, I know that.

Posted by: Lakhim at August 11, 2004 11:00 PM

Ronin, you’re thinking of Maine and Nebraska. In those states, two of the electors are chosen by the statewide popular vote, and the rest are pledged by Congressional districts. So Maine, which has a total of four electors, could pledge three electors to one candidate (two for the winner of the statewide popular election and one for the winner in the larger Congressional district) and one to the other (for the winner in the other, smaller district).

The talk about how a few states have most of the population and most of the electoral votes is nothing more than an instance of the 80/20 rule at work. I think there are a million stories to explain the origin of the 80/20 rule, but the one I heard is that an Italian political philosopher once noticed that 80 percent of the land on the boot was owned by 20 percent of the landowners. This rule crops up all over the place. In a sales organization, 80 percent of your revenue is generated by 20 percent of your salesmen. In a class, 80 percent of the questions are answered by 20 percent of the students. On a dairy farm 80 percent of the milk comes from 20 percent of the cows.

(Don’t check the math. It’s not a rule in the sense of a law of nature as much as it is a rule of thumb, or a guideline.)

It’s not a surprise that most of the country’s population is concentrated in a few states. It would be surprising if it weren’t.

Lakhim, I mean absolutely no disrespect, but are you aware that most of your chatter about redesigning the legislative branch can be heard any day of the week in a freshman-level polisci class? Seriously, man: we’ve had more than two hundred years to improve on our legislature, and nobody’s come up with a better system yet. Have a little humility.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at August 11, 2004 11:24 PM

My take on it, is that under the current system, we have had 230 years of representative government with exclusively peaceful transfers of power. Only the United Kingdom can match that record, I think. Compare to say, France or Germany.

I am reluctant to tamper with anything that successful, and I am glad that a constitutional amendment would be required to do that.

Lakhim, my scenario of five states controlling the election under the popular vote is not so far-fetched as you think. Click on the electoral college link above.

California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania (to include #6) are currently showing for Kerry. Only Texas is shown Republican.

However, I worked it out and those top six states only have 41% of the population… damned if I can remember were I got 50% from as I worked it out once before with the same US Census data. Well, I guess I’m just stupid.

However, in the electoral college those states only have 35% of the electoral college votes. Flyover country still counts… people who live outside of cities still count.

State legislatures, on the other hand, are strictly proportionate in both houses. Where I live, in Washington, Eastern Washington is sparsely populated and as staunchly Republican as Western Washington is staunchly Democrat. If you look at this map:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/common/maps/statemap.htm

You will see that the bulk of the legislative districts contain Seattle and its suburbs; so that Puget Sound may suck all the money from the rest of the State, and forever subordinate the needs of the country to those of the city. Eastern Washington has 10 of 49 districts. I was a page in the State Senate when the bill to impose a gas tax was passed—a gas tax to pay for mass transit in the Puget Sound area….

Every so often a bill comes before the legislature to separate Eastern Washington from Western Washington—we have to have the consent of Puget Sound, so we can’t even leave….

One thing I will say for Washington, is that legislative and Congressional districts are drawn by bipartisan committees, and we do not protect incumbents here. Geroge Nethercutt’s victory over Tom Foley is the most famous example.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at August 12, 2004 12:12 AM

..a real investigation should be launched with the census .Too many chances to cheat then more reps for that state..Electoral College out of date …could be ??

Posted by: Rob_NC at August 12, 2004 09:23 AM