Public Service Post:

[rbmcdonald]

This post is not a “Political” post, but rather a post about politics. It does not support any particular candidate, party or philosophy. Please keep your comments in that vane. If you do not want to read it, which might be the case for most of you, fine do not read it. But I would prefer that it not get gunned, as there is no reason for it to.

 

The actual physical process for electing a President is starting now. In some states, votes must take action now, or they will significantly reduce their ability to participate in the vote for President. If you do not care who is President, then this column will have not interest to you, so go away. It you are interested in who will be President, regardless of who you support, then this column could be of interest to you. This column will not be biased to any candidate. It will be objective information about how the process actually works, many of you will be surprised to know, how other states actually work

 

The only thing that we must all agree on up front, is that for practical reasons, the only two people that have a chance to be the next President, are the Democratic and Republican Nominees. This is how it has been for over 100 years, and this is how it will stay, baring some monumental event. For the remainder of this column, I will use the term "Party Nominees" to refer only to the Democratic and Republican Presidential Nominees.

 

Everything else in this column will flow from the above statement.

 

The manner and rules for how voters elect Party Nominees is different from state to state, and the difference can be very significant.

 

The first thing to understand, is that some states have open primaries and some states have closed primaries. For reasons that I hope are evident, most of this column will be devoted to closed primary states, but there will be one post dedicated to open primary States. The basic definition of open and closed primary states is this:

 

In closed primary states, only voters that "declare" for a particular party, can vote in that party's primary.

 

In open primary states, registered voters can vote in either party's primary, but in only one in a particular election cycle.

 

Unless you believe that the two best candidates for President, will be the Party Nominees, then you must participate in the primary process some how, or you will voluntarily give up you right to participate in a majority of the process to determine who the next President is. I guess I might have put the bit about the party nominees not automatically being the 2 best candidates for President, but I guess I am stupid enough to believe that most of you will agree with that.

 

The order in which closed primary states will be discussed, will be based on timing in those states, so to keep the information most relevant.

 

New Hampshire & New York

 

New Hampshire

 

October 12, 2007 is the last day to change your party affiliation, i.e. (Rep to Dem, Dem to Rep, Rep to Undeclared or Dem to Undeclared) to be able to vote in the Presidential Primary. If you are currently registered as a member of a particular party, then you would only be able to vote in that party's primary in the up coming presidential primary. If you are registered as undeclared, then you would be able to vote in either primary (but only one). If you have previously voted in any party primary, then you have automatically been registered as a member of that party, unless you actively changed you party affiliation back to undeclared. If you want to vote in the Presidential primary, then you MUST know that you are registered for the right party, or that you are registered as undeclared. After October 12, it will be too late to change this.

 

New York

 

October 12, 2007 is the last day to change your party affiliation, i.e. (Rep to Dem, Dem to Rep, Independent to Rep or Independent to Dem) to be able to vote in the Presidential Primary. If you are currently registered as a member of a particular party, then you would only be able to vote in that party's primary in the up coming presidential primary. If you are registered as an independent or as a third party candidate, then you would NOT be able to vote in either primary. If you want to vote in the Presidential primary, then you MUST know that you are registered for the right party, only voters registered as either a Dem or Rep will be able to vote in the up coming primary. After October 12, it will be too late to change this.

 

Additional installments will be added to this post, as well as posted independently.

[dmarc117]

i do not vote because my vote never leaves my state.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

i do not vote because my vote never leaves my state.

 

Abolish the EC.

[dmarc117]

Abolish the EC.

 

 

we need to do something. completely abolish it and the little states will get ignored. but we need to count the popular vote somehow. some kind of hybrid system.

[Azazello1313]

The only thing that we must all agree on up front, is that for practical reasons, the only two people that have a chance to be the next President, are the Democratic and Republican Nominees. This is how it has been for over 100 years, and this is how it will stay, baring some monumental event.

 

well, perot got 20% in 92 and he woulda got more if he weren't such a loon. and george wallace won a few southern states in 68. then of course, there's the 1912 election (which is still in your "last 100 years", if only barely). so i'm not so sure this "common knowledge" is quite so absolute.

[Pope Flick]

Abolish the EC.

 

 

We're a Republic. Drop it and national campaigns get reduced to major cities only. VERY bad idea.

[Azazello1313]

the reasons for the EC are as valid now as they ever were.

[Pope Flick]

the reasons for the EC are as valid now as they ever were.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

What a lot of people seem to fail to realize these days is the effect the EC has on the legitimacy of the president. Clinton is the only guy in history to never receive over 50% of the vote in two elections while winning both. His EC totals, however, imparted a sense of legitimacy due to the overwhelming nature (especially in 1996) of the # of votes he received.

 

About the only tweak I'd like to it is that EC members HAVE to vote for the candidate their constituents did, so we don't get crap like Lloyd Benson getting 1 EC making him the answer to the question "Who was the last person to receive an electoral college vote that wasn't a presidential candidate of the Republicans or Democrats?"

 

And that's not even touching the idea of elections turning into lawsuits. Could you imagine West Palm Beach X 500? No thanks.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

We're a Republic. Drop it and national campaigns get reduced to major cities only. VERY bad idea.

 

Bah. Campaigns are already reduced to high population areas. The EC is based on population already. The problem is as I've said over and over is it's winner take all. I'm sure there are alot of Republicans in CA who don't bother to vote and Democrats in Arizona and Texas as well. Count all the votes. Abolish the outdated EC. It doesn't work and is not needed anymore.

[Pope Flick]

Bah. Campaigns are already reduced to high population areas. The EC is based on population already. The problem is as I've said over and over is it's winner take all. I'm sure there are alot of Republicans in CA who don't bother to vote and Democrats in Arizona and Texas as well. Count all the votes. Abolish the outdated EC. It doesn't work and is not needed anymore.

 

 

Let's say it wasn't in place in the year 2000. Then let's assume the national vote differential was the same: Gore wins by 500 nationwide.

 

Karl Rove wants a recount in California because even though Bush lost California by over 50,000 votes (meanign a lawsuit for a recount under the EC is completely irrelevant with that type of vote break) he thinks he can make a dent in the 500 vote difference there. He also thinks he can find more votes in a recount in several other western states. Gore's camp responds by wanting a recount in the states of New York, Texas and Illinois, then Bushco wants to recount in even more states as a response. Eventually, all 50 states are mired in county by county lawsuits and recounts. That is, quite simply, how it would go down.

 

In short, the rest of the general elections in our lifetimes would end up mired in lawsuits that would probably extend the Inaugural date by months. It would, most likely, create a constitutional crisis because it's an integral part of how our system is meant to run, and should not be thrown out by a "Bah."

[Azazello1313]

It doesn't work and is not needed anymore.

 

perhaps then you could explain why it was needed in the past, and why that need has disappeared. truth is, the issues of federalism are the same as they ever were.

[dmarc117]

with todays technology, something could be done to make the actual number of votes count.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

with todays technology, something could be done to make the actual number of votes count.

 

Not to mention national campaigning via today's communication methods - namely national television. You can reach pretty much everybody without even stepping foot into their state. Public financing of elections including guaranteed equal airtime to major candidates in all 50 states would solve any problems surrounding the idea of concentrating campaigns to small geographic areas.

Edited October 10, 2007 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Azazello1313]

so you tards think technology is the reason the founding fathers wrote the electoral college into article 2 of the constitution, huh?

 

maybe you should read federalist 39.

[Pope Flick]

so you tards think technology is the reason the founding fathers wrote the electoral college into article 2 of the constitution, huh?

 

maybe you should read federalist 39.

 

 

I think that regulars of this board ought to consider that something both Az and I agree on should not be dismissed with hyperbole.

 

 

We're that smart.

 

I can drink coffee with the best of them, just as he can fetch said coffee with the best of them.

[polksalet]

Frank MacKay for PRES!!!!

Edited October 10, 2007 by polksalet

[rbmcdonald]

well, perot got 20% in 92 and he would got more if he weren't such a loon. and george wallace won a few southern states in 68. then of course, there's the 1912 election (which is still in your "last 100 years", if only barely). so i'm not so sure this "common knowledge" is quite so absolute.

 

I am correct in understanding that based on the following 3 Presidential races:

 

 

1912:

Where a Republican Politician, pissed that he lost the nomination to the incumbent Republican President, ran as a third candidate. The result being that while the 2 Republican candidates combined, received 66.8% of the popular vote, they only received 22% of the electoral votes. This allowed the Democratic Candidate to win easily, the only Democrat elected President in a 40 year period of 1892 to 1932.

 

1968:

Where in part, because of the very volatile Democratic Primary Race (The incumbent Democratic President withdrew from the race after primaries had begun, one of the leading Democratic contenders was assassinated, violent anit-war demonstrations and the ongoing upheaval of the Civil Rights Movement), a Southern Democratic Governor ran as a third candidate, and received 13.5% of the popular vote, and 8.5% of the electoral votes (from 5 southern states), based mostly on support of continued racial separation.

 

1992:

Where a Billionaire, possible motivated by his apparent dislike of the Incumbent Republican President, decided to run as a third candidate. Based on his ability to spend millions of his own money on advertising, and lying to his supporters, he was able to receive 18.9% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

 

You are arguing that it is possible for an Independent or Third-Party candidate to be elected as President, without some monumental event as a catalyst and/or that a majority of the people who are even just mildly interest in the election, do not believe that it is impossible for someone other than the Democratic or Republican Nominee to win.

[Azazello1313]

I am correct in understanding that based on the following 3 Presidential races:

1912:

Where a Republican Politician, pissed that he lost the nomination to the incumbent Republican President, ran as a third candidate. The result being that while the 2 Republican candidates combined, received 66.8% of the popular vote, they only received 22% of the electoral votes. This allowed the Democratic Candidate to win easily, the only Democrat elected President in a 40 year period of 1892 to 1932.

 

1968:

Where in part, because of the very volatile Democratic Primary Race (The incumbent Democratic President withdrew from the race after primaries had begun, one of the leading Democratic contenders was assassinated, violent anit-war demonstrations and the ongoing upheaval of the Civil Rights Movement), a Southern Democratic Governor ran as a third candidate, and received 13.5% of the popular vote, and 8.5% of the electoral votes (from 5 southern states), based mostly on support of continued racial separation.

 

1992:

Where a Billionaire, possible motivated by his apparent dislike of the Incumbent Republican President, decided to run as a third candidate. Based on his ability to spend millions of his own money on advertising, and lying to his supporters, he was able to receive 18.9% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

 

You are arguing that it is possible for an Independent or Third-Party candidate to be elected as President, without some monumental event as a catalyst and/or that a majority of the people who are even just mildly interest in the election, do not believe that it is impossible for someone other than the Democratic or Republican Nominee to win.

 

i just don't think anything is written in stone as long as people are free to vote for whomever they please. i cannot say with complete certainty that a a candidate without the republican or democratic party apparatus behind them will never win the presidency. maybe you can. the truth is, our system has always been heavily geared toward the two-party equilibrium...but as history has shown several times already in our 230 year history (the republican/progressive split you refer to is a great example), that equilibrium is not totally immune to temporary disruption and flux....even if it just results in the next era of two-party equilibrium.

[Savage Beatings]

The problem is as I've said over and over is it's winner take all. I'm sure there are alot of Republicans in CA who don't bother to vote and Democrats in Arizona and Texas as well.

 

I think that THIS is a valid point. I would never want to abolish the EC... but we could definitely improve the process by demanding split EC votes per state based upon the popular vote. I believe however that each state determines on its own whether they cast their EC votes as split or as winner takes all. This is one of the supreme areas of "states rights" which the Federal government really will never be able to dictate.

[rbmcdonald]

i just don't think anything is written in stone as long as people are free to vote for whomever they please. i cannot say with complete certainty that a a candidate without the republican or democratic party apparatus behind them will never win the presidency. maybe you can. the truth is, our system has always been heavily geared toward the two-party equilibrium...but as history has shown several times already in our 230 year history (the republican/progressive split you refer to is a great example), that equilibrium is not totally immune to temporary disruption and flux....even if it just results in the next era of two-party equilibrium.

 

My position is not that it couldn't happen, but rather it would require some monumental event to allow it to happen. Certainly I used absolute phrases, when I should not have, but I to feel very, very, very comfortable that my primes is substantially correct. It examples cited, certainly the situation was disrupted, but in all three cases, the only significant result of the disruption was that in 1912, it appears that the disruption allowed the Democrat to win, win a single Republican candidate would have won. In 1968 or 1992, I am not sure that it can be established with any certainty, that the 3rd candidate even shifted the balance from Rep to the Dem, or visa versa.

[dmarc117]

I think that THIS is a valid point. I would never want to abolish the EC... but we could definitely improve the process by demanding split EC votes per state based upon the popular vote. I believe however that each state determines on its own whether they cast their EC votes as split or as winner takes all. This is one of the supreme areas of "states rights" which the Federal government really will never be able to dictate.

 

 

yes.....why i dont vote here in illinois. vote goes nowhere

[rbmcdonald]

I think that THIS is a valid point. I would never want to abolish the EC... but we could definitely improve the process by demanding split EC votes per state based upon the popular vote. I believe however that each state determines on its own whether they cast their EC votes as split or as winner takes all. This is one of the supreme areas of "states rights" which the Federal government really will never be able to dictate.

 

Changing from winner takes all to a system of dividing up electoral votes, just makes the system more and more like a popular vote system, which then increases the power of States with large metropolitan areas, and decreases the power of smaller states, or states with a more dispersed population. Keep in mind that not all states are winner take all, and federal law does not prevent a state from changing from winner take all to something else. I am back and forth on the electoral college, but what people do need to understand, is that we do not live in a democracy (in the pure sense), but rather a Constitutional Republic. As an example, I think you might get 51% of the population to agree to outlaw being a White Supremist, but our system protects the minority from the majority. We can restrict what White Supremists do, to some extent, but we can't lock them up because they think what they think, or write what they write, or say what they say.

[Azazello1313]

I think that THIS is a valid point. I would never want to abolish the EC... but we could definitely improve the process by demanding split EC votes per state based upon the popular vote.

 

i disagree. splitting a state's EC votes essentially neuters that state as a polity. it essentially creates slightly less atomized version of the popular vote. it does not respect the federalistic intent of the electoral college system.