Maybe it is time to dust off the Constitution. Remember that document? It defines America. It does three essential things. Most people don't realize that. Any constitution does just three things:
- Define the organization of a government
- Define the operation of that government
- Define the limits of the power of that government
See? You didn't know that did you? You ascribed much broader purposes to the document but in the process you overlooked the essential power of the writing itself.
Why should we go back to the document? Because we need to review how it prescribes the choosing of our chief executive. You don't know what it says. Hell, Al Gore apparently didn't know what it said when he whined that George Bush didn't win the election in 2000.
Here it is:
2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.
Ok, you thought you knew that. But did you notice that there is not one single word in that description about any general election? There is nothing about a common citizen casting a single vote!
"Each state shall appoint" in a manner determined by the state legislature means that electors aren't themselves elected.
Why was it done this way? Quite simply because the Founding Fathers had a pretty firm belief that an emotional electorate would succumb to pandering and payoffs leading to corrupted and ineffective governance. And they have been proven absolutely correct, haven't they?
(Please note that the 1-2 selection of President and VP was modified by the 12th Amendment but still doesn't include any citizens voting.)
8 comments:
Yep we can have an election with these results
Obama 72,000,000
Romney 68,000,000
And have Romney elected president
And you think this is a good idea???
I can assure if it's the other way around you'd be raising a big ole stink about it.
And Gore didn't raise a stink about getting more votes than Bush nationwide. He raised a stink about votes in one state. Get your facts right.
~Leadfoot
Get your facts right. The rules are written before the game is played. That establishes that the Electoral College does the job. The membership is set by the legislatures of the states and varies. The voting practice (en bloc, free choice, proportional, etc.) is established by state law or customary practice depending upon the state. FL awards all their votes en bloc to the statewide winner. A recount of three counties hand-picked for a desired outcome is not consistent with the law. The US Supreme Ct has jurisdiction and they ruled. The subsequent, "but I won the popular vote" demonstrated the common acceptance of something patently untrue.
Perot got 18% of the vote in 1992, roughly one-fifth, but got not a single Electoral College vote. Fair? Doesn't matter. Those are the rules of the game.
Does it take a majority to win? No. It takes a majority only of the Electoral College.
A candidate could win eight states by just one vote and lose the remaining 42 by 90% opposition and become the President.
Don't come here and display your knowledge of "facts", Leadfoot. You are like Axelrod's monkey up a pole. (Those liberals certainly do bring culture to political discourse, don't they?)
Ed,
Reread my post.
Where are my facts wrong?
Be specific.
~leadfoot
If the democrats have their way pretty soon the president will be elected by the popular vote. They are changing the way the states make their electoral college vote. The big liberal states with their big city liberals and demorctic supporters will rule every election.
Ed,
You are right I do have my facts wrong.
There is absolutely no way a GOP dominated by the tea party will nominate Mitt Romney. The ABM Movement is just too strong in the GOP
Therefore I will adjust my post
Obama 77,000,000
Gingrich 63,000,000
Now if you think Gingrich will win the electoral college with these vote totals... well dream on buddy.
And ED, have a Merry Xmas
~leadfoot
ROTFLMAO at Gingrich.
This guy wants to be POTUS but can't get the signatures for VA Primary???
I feel fortunate this IDIOT will never be President.
~leadfoot
Not sure but most states choose the members of the electoral college by the vote of the people. It seems to me there are only a couple of states that do not have a winner takes all policy. Therefore states like Wyoming, Montana with smaller populations have a minimum of three votes each. Helps to insure they do have a voice in the election.
No, Ed. There are a wide range of selection methods and only a few states chose slates of pledged electors. 38 states require electors to vote en bloc for the plurality winner. The remaining 12 do so by custom.
Post a Comment