I am not voting for John McCain.
And neither is anyone else.
Nor is anyone voting for Barack Obama.
I am voting for representatives to the electoral college who will vote for John McCain.
You do not get to vote for President. There is no "national popular vote" for President. You do not have a federal right to vote for President; that is up to the states to provide, and it could be revoked.
The President exists to administrate a government that serves the states, not the individual people of those states. It makes sense therefore that the President is not elected by the nation, but by representatives of the states.
Which is why no one is voting for John McCain or Barack Obama.
This has been a public service message.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 28, 2008 03:31 PM | Email ThisIt is interesting to note that electors are not totally bound to their party. They can vote against the winning party if they are willing to swallow a $1,000 fine.
Posted by: Seabecker on October 28, 2008 04:07 PMI am voting for McCain so my elector knows who to cast his ballot for. Got it?
Posted by: swatter on October 28, 2008 04:21 PMWhat kind of obsolete drivel is this? I am not a Washingtonian or a Californian. I am an American. I certainly don't identify with any particular state. Those days are long past. States are nothing more than local administrative regions, and are becoming increasingly meaningless in the modern world, where people can, and do have residences and family, and even jobs spread all over the country. I work at home in Bellevue, my manager, and my corporate office is in California, incorporated under Delaware law. I travel all over the country, and my family is spread all over the country (and the world for that matter). What "state" am I a resident of? Who cares? States are nothing more than an anachronism these days.
Why is the Federal government becoming more and more powerful? Because their job is to handle any laws, commerce, companies etc that crosses state lines. These days, that would be..EVERYTHING!
Posted by: Proteus on October 28, 2008 05:11 PMWhat kind of obsolete drivel is this?
The Constitution is drivel?
I am not a Washingtonian
I am.
I am an American.
Me too.
I certainly don't identify with any particular state.
I do.
Those days are long past.
No they are not. You are, factually, wrong. You WANT them to be long past, but the Constitution still says what it says. If you want to change the Constitution, feel free to try.
And indeed, states are required for the sake of liberty, because the more local government is, the more free you are, so I will oppose any such changed. But until the Constitution is changed, you violate my Constitutional rights every time you ignore the Constitutional authority of the states.
I work at home in Bellevue, my manager, and my corporate office is in California, incorporated under Delaware law.
So? My coworkers and their office are in Michigan, and our parent company is in California. This has no relevance.
What "state" am I a resident of?
Um. It's sad that you don't know. You just told us: Washington. Unless you meant some other Bellevue?
Why is the Federal government becoming more and more powerful?
Because people like you ignore the Constitution, and actively encourage the federal government to violate our rights.
Of course, this is pretty controversial, and has been since Hamilton and Jefferson argued it over 200 years ago.
Fact is, this is NOT a democracy. That's right. The United States of America does NOT operate under a democratic system of government. The US Constitution explicitly guarantees each state in the Union a REPUBLICAN system of Government. That is a true government of, by, and for the people. A Democracy is merely a government of and maybe by the people. It is mob rule at its worst. Sadly, we started going against the Spirit of the Constitution by enacting the direct election of Senators. They were supposed to be different from the House of Representatives, and in more than just the number of years they serve.
The Electoral College is not the political equivalent of the appendix. It is a crucial part of the checks and balances system. There is nothing wrong with voting for our candidate to signal to the Electors whom we want as our president. Once in a while, you will have situations like what happened in 2000, but that only shows that the system WORKS!
Posted by: RedGreener on October 28, 2008 05:52 PMI still maintain that the Constitution specifically tasks the federal government with regulation of interstate commerce (Article 1, sec 8). These days, interstate commerce affects just about everything :-)
That clearly goes against the plain intent and language of the Constitution, and denies my liberty.
Again: liberty is maximized when decisions are as local as possible. An unlimited federal government is, by definition, tyranny.
RedGreener: right no.
As for the federal government regulating interstate commerce I wish it would. Ask any truck driver what a pain the patootie it is to haul interstate freight.
Posted by: Vince on October 28, 2008 06:19 PMOne party rule especially by the individuals that call themselves Democrats who would rise to the top is particularly dangerous as it will erode our freedoms, lose money to the Federal Government to finance its growth and it will lock us into a significant increase in socialism over what we already have.
I don't expect the aforementioned idiots above to be able to comprehend or appreciate this fact. Moreover, I expect them to keep spewing more evil leftist propaganda as Nov. 4th grows closer. Yes, this a Democratic Republic, as set forth in the Constitution, but if the left gets in a position of absolute power, they can change this to a Socialist Democracy in a surprisingly short time - by collectively choosing to ignore the Constitution. This doesn't include how they will stock the courts with leftist and in some cases Marxist judges. The choice is yours...
Let's say we did get rid of the electoral college. Would this change the results based of presidential elections? For example as a Washington resident, every 4 years I witness how one political group in one or two counties dictate the picks for the presidential race for the rest of the state. Given the increasingly urban development of the U.S. which tends to vote liberal, would getting rid of the electoral college favor conservatives or liberals?
Historically, the popular and electoral votes have been coupled in terms of who would be elected sans in 1876, 1888, and 2000. This obviously isn't enough to conclude that the electoral college helps or hurts one political ideology over another. But, it's worth considering that as the social and demographic structure of the populace changes, it might make a difference in the future.
Posted by: Richard T Moore on October 28, 2008 07:22 PMIt is quite amazing how prescient Hamilton's words are regarding the purpose of the Electoral College:
"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. 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 investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."
Unfortunately, things have deteriorated dramatically since then, I rather doubt the electors of today are "most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice" nor do they " possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. "
Imagine that! Even back then Hamilton knew there were idiot voters incapable of making informed decisions. Thus, the protection of the Electoral College
If Barry is elected Hamilton's concerns will likely be realized.
Posted by: Dave on October 28, 2008 07:28 PMBased upon the current scenario, sometimes, s**t happens.
Posted by: KS on October 28, 2008 07:54 PMI voted for Browne in '96 because I lived in Massachusetts. If we'd had a national popular vote, I'd have voted for Dole. This is not uncommon.
We cannot know who would have won a hypothetical popular vote in 2000.
However, it's also worth noting that if Kerry had won Ohio in 2004, he would have won the Presidency while losing the same "popular vote" as Bush did in 2000.
You can never know the effect such changes will have, and you cannot make these decisions based on which "side" will benefit, but what is best for governance.
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 08:06 PM#15.
And the problem with that is? New York and California are arguably the most important states in the union. Is it fair that due to the current crappy system, we pay more attention to podunk states like Iowa and New Hampshire? Is it fair that a vote in Wyoming counts for far more than a vote in California? Right now, these low population, rural states have a disproportionate impact on our political system
Wow..what baloney.
Nope.
Not sure how a strong federal government denies your Freedom(tm) and Liberty(r).
I already explained it succinctly: "the more local government is, the more free you are." Do you not understand this concept? It's obviously true, in any sort of democracy or representative democracy: the more local it is, the easier it is to have your voice heard, to be involved, and the fewer voices there are competing with yours.
What individual rights have supposedly been denied you?
Read the Tenth Amendment. Every time a decision is made by the federal government when the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to make that decision, it takes away from me the power to either make that decision on my own, or to have that decision made by my more local government.
I never got this common right wing complaint.
It's very simple.
State laws actually tend to be far more restrictive on individual freedoms than Federal law.
That's beside the point, which is, again, that having a decision made at the federal level IS a restriction on my liberty. That a decision at the federal level exists, limits me, because it takes the decision out of my hands. Sometimes that is necessary, but usually it is not.
Is it fair that a vote in Wyoming counts for far more than a vote in California?
Um. I already demonstrated the fact that this is false. A vote in Wyoming never counts more than a vote in California, because a vote in Wyoming is NEVER FOR THE SAME THING as a vote in California. No one in Wyoming ever votes for the same thing that anyone in California votes for.
Right now, these low population, rural states have a disproportionate impact on our political system
No, they do not. They have exactly the right proportion.
This wouldn't matter if you cared about people rather than states. Each person would have one vote, so candidates would look for votes wherever they could find them. In general, they would focus on places where they could influence the most undecided voters per dollar spent, which might be in large states or small, and urban, suburban, exurban, or rural areas. And they wouldn't ignore the majority of states that lean strongly toward one side or the other, as they largely do now.
Pudge writes, "A vote in Wyoming never counts more than a vote in California, because a vote in Wyoming is NEVER FOR THE SAME THING as a vote in California."
You are technically right but, from a practical perspective, wrong. Choosing electors is virtually the same as choosing who the electors will vote for, and therefore, all Americans are voting for president. Your point is as silly as saying that I didn't shoot someone because I actually just moved my finger and some molecules happened to come together to form a trigger which happened to expel a bullet...
This wouldn't matter if you cared about people rather than states.
The REASON we care about the states is BECAUSE we believe that is the best way to preserve the liberty of the PEOPLE.
You are technically right but, from a practical perspective, wrong.
You are technically right in the first clause, and technically wrong in the second.
Choosing electors is virtually the same as choosing who the electors will vote for, and therefore, all Americans are voting for president.
No, they are not. Again: this is why I voted for Browne in '96. The fact that we vote for state electors and not the President significantly impacts how people vote.
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 10:13 PMI do not want New York and California deciding the Presidency for me. Your argument regarding " Podunk states" is nonsensical. (not to mention elitists. But being that you are a liberal I repeat myself).
I don't whether to be sad or scared by the the number of people in this country that are utterly ignorant about how this country was founded. Not to mention the fact even more people have no flippin clue what is in the Constituion beyond the first five amendments. (quick! Without looking it up, what is the 8th Amendment? No, I didn't think so).
What you seem to want is what the USSR had. A single centralized government.. No, thanks. There was a reason there were Soviet States. So, did you ever stop to contemplate why the world map changed after the USSR broke up? That all powerful single centralized govt didn't work out so well for the people, did it?
Posted by: Dave on October 29, 2008 01:36 AMI do not want New York and California deciding the Presidency for me. Your argument regarding " Podunk states" is nonsensical. (not to mention elitists. But being that you are a liberal I repeat myself).
I don't whether to be sad or scared by the the number of people in this country that are utterly ignorant about how this country was founded. Not to mention the fact even more people have no flippin clue what is in the Constituion beyond the first five amendments. (quick! Without looking it up, what is the 8th Amendment? No, I didn't think so).
What you seem to want is what the USSR had. A single centralized government.. No, thanks. There was a reason there were Soviet States. So, did you ever stop to contemplate why the world map changed after the USSR broke up? That all powerful single centralized govt didn't work out so well for the people, did it?
Posted by: Dave on October 29, 2008 07:43 AMI do not want New York and California deciding the Presidency for me. Your argument regarding " Podunk states" is nonsensical. (not to mention elitists. But being that you are a liberal I repeat myself).
I don't whether to be sad or scared by the the number of people in this country that are utterly ignorant about how this country was founded. Not to mention the fact even more people have no flippin clue what is in the Constituion beyond the first five amendments. (quick! Without looking it up, what is the 8th Amendment? No, I didn't think so).
What you seem to want is what the USSR had. A single centralized government.. No, thanks. There was a reason there were Soviet States. So, did you ever stop to contemplate why the world map changed after the USSR broke up? That all powerful single centralized govt didn't work out so well for the people, did it?
Posted by: Dave on October 29, 2008 07:46 AMI guess a follow-on question is do you feel the electoral college is still a good model, or does it need tweaking, or abandonment.
I for one, would not want to see it abandoned because I feel it would give too much power to the populous states. I am intrigued by one idea I saw floated recently to add four or five electoral votes to the college that are awarded based on nation wide vote. I also wonder if given our size as a nation if the size of the House is adequate. The House has been expanded over the years as population grew, but has been stuck at its current level for decades.
Posted by: tc on October 29, 2008 07:46 AMI am not opposed out-of-hand to tweaking it. I do think it is a good model, and I am opposed to a national popular vote.
Posted by: pudge on October 29, 2008 08:14 AMAnd Proteus's proposal to rewrite the constitution: Sure, let's go for it. Maybe we can add clauses that are popularly supported like defining marriage as between one man and one woman, eliminating the abortion right, restoring property rights, states rights, individual liberties, and term limits on all elected offices throughout the land.
Proteus, if you opened up the constitution to a rewrite by the people, you'd surely hate what the true majority of the US would ask for since we as a people are deadset against your socialist agenda.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on October 29, 2008 10:21 AMthe Founding Fathers saw Democracy (majority rule) as terrible as we see Communism and Socialism in our day.
Well, not quite. They saw democracy as terrible because it ALLOWED for such tyrannies as we see in modern democratic socialism. A functioning republic would not allow for such Obama-style socialism to happen through the democratic process, because it would protect our liberties.
Socialism and Communism are bad because of what they do to us. Democracy is bad because it allows for Socialism and Communism and Fascism through the democratic process.
Posted by: pudge on October 29, 2008 10:34 AMBut the more Presidential elections I vote in, the more brilliant I find the Founding Fathers to have been in establishing the foundations for this country. Their understanding of the nature of "man" and governments obsession with power was utterly remarkable. Again, apparently nothing has changed since our Presidential elections 200+ years ago. We had ill informed voters then. In some ways that was more forgivable given the lack of access to timely information, the likely percentage of people that lack basic education. Today we seem to have an per capita equal number of ill and uninformed voters. For that there is no excuse. So, again, thank God for the Electoral College.
As for Proteus and his "let's re-write the Constitution". Well, for me to even take that suggestion seriously, you need to prove to me you've even read it and understand it. Nevertheless, I have no interest in being France, where they've gone through FIVE implementations of new constitutions. We also see how that too has worked out so well. Read a history book once, then get back to us with your ideas.
Posted by: Dave on October 29, 2008 11:00 AMThe Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing document, that would change with the times. This is why we have the ammendment process.
And Dave, it is you who shows your ignorance. Hamilton was very much in favor of a strong central government.
Jonathan...
I think you're about to find out just what the "true majority of the US" will be asking for. Here is a hint....they're not going to elect your relgious wackjob Caribou Barbie for "cancerous geezer's backup" slot.
We're likely looking at large Democrat victories in Congress, and hopefully the end of the current reign of terror, and the recovery of our prosperity and world prestige.
Posted by: Proteus on October 29, 2008 10:19 PMWe are not against changing the Constitution. We are against changing it in a bad way.
The case for the E.C. has been made. You have not made a serious case against it, nor have you responded to the case for it.
And no, Hamilton was in favor of what AT THE TIME was CONSIDERED a strong central government ... which today's standards would be considered very weak. Granted, he was more in favor of central power than Madison, but that's not saying much.
And your pathetic hatred, Proteus, is why even if the Democrats DO win this year in DC, it will be short-lived. Here's a hint for you: the American people DO NOT LIKE DEMOCRATS. They really don't. But they are angry at the Republicans, which results in people either not voting, or picking Democrats by default. The left wing the Democrats represent is not where the Republicans are, they just happen to be the only alternative to a Republican Party that has lost its way.
Oh, and one more thing, you are either ignorant or lying when you say the fiscal policy of the last eight years has been conservative. The foreign policy has been conservative in many ways ... unfortunately, the conservative success -- such as in Pakistan so far, and hopefully in North Korea -- have been panned by Obama as moving in the wrong direction, which is extremely scary.
I don't hate anyone, I just fundamentally disagree with the path this country has taken for the past eight years; a view shared by over 80% of Americans. Believe it or not, I was actually a registered Republican in 2000, and a delegate for McCain at the state convention. If the current McCain was anything like the McCain of 2000, I would have voted for him.
"Here's a hint for you: the American people DO NOT LIKE DEMOCRATS"
Really? Thats funny, because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans...38-34% according to Rasmussen.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
Its the independent vote that is more interesting, Independents in the past have broken to the right, but have recently shifted significantly to the left, based on the failures of right-wing policy these past eight years.
Its really quite simple. Obama represents a significant change from the failed policies of the Bush administration, he has fresh ideas, and will have a mandate for real change. McCain represents more of the same.
Lastly...you were right to call me on this one:
"Oh, and one more thing, you are either ignorant or lying when you say the fiscal policy of the last eight years has been conservative"
Bush is far, far from a fiscal conservative. He's nationalized our banking system, given huge tax breaks to undeserving corporations, and given tax refunds to those who don't pay taxes!
Obama on the other hand would level corporate taxes, by closing loopholes that cause small businesses to be taxed far higher than large corporations. He'd make sure we don't have a situation like today, where the likes of Warren Buffet pay a 17.7% tax rate, while his receptionist pays 30%
Leona Helmsley was right..due to current law, "only the little people pay taxes".
I don't hate anyone
Whatever. The last few lines of @33 speaks for itself.
If the current McCain was anything like the McCain of 2000, I would have voted for him.
It's amazing anyone believes this lie. There is no evidence of any kind that McCain has changed in any significant way since 2000.
Thats funny, because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans...38-34% according to Rasmussen.
You say this as though it in some way contradicts what I said. Why did you do that? If anything, it backs up what I said. Come on, man, THINK a little.
Its the independent vote that is more interesting, Independents in the past have broken to the right, but have recently shifted significantly to the left, based on the failures of right-wing policy these past eight years.
Exactly. This also backs up what I said. People are not voting Democrat because they like Democrats, but because they are angry at Republicans.
Lastly...you were right to call me on this one:
And from what you said, I apologize, you were not ignorant or lying, but were apparently merely caught up in the moment and writing/thinking sloppily.
Obama on the other hand would level corporate taxes, by closing loopholes that cause small businesses to be taxed far higher than large corporations. He'd make sure we don't have a situation like today, where the likes of Warren Buffet pay a 17.7% tax rate, while his receptionist pays 30%
Oh please. If his receiptionist pays that much, then it is because she is (for 2007) single and making over $165K, or married and making over $195K combined. In one of the top two tax rate brackets. (And this is AFTER deductions, and most people in those income ranges have a lot of deductions.)
So this means that his receptionist everyone feels so badly for is likely one of the rich people that Obama would INCREASE taxes on.
Oops.
I am in favor of closing tax loopholes, as McCain is, for rich people to get around paying what the law says they should pay. The answer, however, is not disincentivizing work by removing deductions and exemptions just for the wealthy, or to continue the abomination that is the AMY, it is to move to a flatter tax.