The Electorate Failed, largely because of the deceptive MSM.
What a bunch of dummies.
Posted on 01/12/2009 7:34:24 PM PST by NewMediaJournal
As the Founding Fathers debated in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, they struggled with the questions of how to design a lasting republic for the people of the newly independent colonies.
In an age long before radio and television, and years before the electric telegraph, when the three-century-old Gutenberg press was still the state of the art in printing; the Founding Fathers were haunted by fears of political intrigue... a carryover from centuries of cross-border cabals, palace revolts, political intrigues, and revolution on the European continent.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68,
“These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
As the delegates struggled with the question of how to permanently insulate the leaders of the executive branch of government from the undue influence of foreign governments, the answer they arrived at was the Electoral College.
In justifying the creation of the Electoral College, Hamilton wrote,
“It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose...
(Excerpt) Read more at newmediajournal.us ...
The Electoral College is working fine. This last election it kept Cynthia A. McKinney out of the Presidency, and 4 years ago it kept Senator Kerry out, and before that VP Gore out, and before that several others ~ little guy with jug ears ~ did that twice.
The Electorate Failed, largely because of the deceptive MSM.
What a bunch of dummies.
Every Presidential election, someone complains about the Electoral College, usually the loosing side. It has worked from its inception … don’t mess with perfection.
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Although McKinney is a total jerk, I don't recall her making a public claim that she was entitled to the presidency.
I think you were trying to make a bad joke.
This article is plain silly.
Yes they have. They don’t even know if the people for whom they cast their ballots is even qualified to be president. Didn’t even ask.
OK...is it true that no one has seen this birth certificate yet? I thought that it had been seen at one time. I know it wasn’t public, but I thought someone validated it.
Only the candidates who can do a national campaign have any chance at all.
Cynthia McKinney was the 2008 Green Party candidate for President. She lost in the Electoral College, so it kept her out of office.
She also lost everywhere else, but only the EC counts.
In addition, before the election, there was a failure on the part of 'Rat party before nominating Obama as their candidate and later on the part of the state election officials who permitted his name on the general election ballots in their resective states - all without carefully vetting him to ensure that he met constitutional standards of presidential eligibility.
What will be interesting to see is what was ok to dump on G.W.B. will not be tolerated to ask O.
it is no way perfect
It has allowed small geographical areas of unique population criteria to dictate what the rest of each state declares as winner
I believe each state’s county should count as an electoral vote, not each state’s total electoral votes as a winner take all.
If so, since we had so many MORE Republican counties over twice the area of the country, the dems would not have such a small area of people who are condensed in these areas with NO cultural or historical connection telling others who is to lead
I was in NY when Hillary got elected, she LOST almost every county vote except large cities, and due to each city having so many more people, the dems won even though 90% of the state voted against her
regardless of which ethnic identity occupies the cities, their voting block, if it is almost uniform, they will dictate the whims of themselves and not the general population at large
Didn’t know that the constitutional concept of the Electoral College had anything to do with local elections?
Hillary is just another example of the flawed logic behind the 17th Amendment.
Without it, our Senators would be more loyal to their STATES, than to some National Political Party.
Or the 10 most populous cities....
it does when considering the electoral votes of each state
some states are a winner take all, most states
some are divided among the election results
New York would have had so many FOR Lazio, that would have made a difference against the pure numbers, maybe enough to keep her out
looking at the latest red state/blue state/county maps makes the point ever clearer
we should have each separate county or parish or however each state divides their voting blocks counted for the president, not each state give total electoral votes for Pres
I vote for towns having one electoral vote for each state
then total up for each candidate who won
Jefferson wouldn’t want the ten largest cities deciding who was President. I didn’t ever think that I’d conclude that most cities are shitholes but I do now. The urban masses are destroying this country.
Corruption of morals... is the mark set on those who, not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts, has sometimes, perhaps, been retarded by accidental circumstances; but generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of citizens bears in any state to that of its husbandmen is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer whereby to measure its degree of corruption.” —Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIX, 1782. ME 2:229
However, my point stands for NY, if they used each town instead of the 8 MILLION voters in NYC telling the dozens of smaller towns that Aren't New York City, well, Hildabeast would be a wanton carbetbagger still
Don’t agree with your assessment of the whole electoral college concept. However, your opinion is sacrosanct. I for one, believe that the electoral college works and believe in it with all my intellectual heart.
Hopefully we can agree to disagree? And, no, I didn’t vote for Obama!
If you read MSM articles you are lead to believe that. The truth is that HI officials have confirmed that an original BC is on file, that is all. They never addressed what information is on it.
The rub is that Hawaii used to allow foreign births to be registered, and they would then issue a Certificate of Live Birth which is what BHO's campaign released on their website. Some here at FR and on conservative/right-wing blogs have made the case that the COBL image that was posted was altered.
I don't know what the truth is, but BHO has spent a ton of money fighting this issue in court when it would have been really simple and cheap to release the documents (like McCain did) and put this issue to bed. The MSM won't touch it.
Enforcement of election law has failed, permitting fraud to expand unchecked.
Countless politicians, after taking a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, have failed.
Liberalism continues to FAIL.
Their growing numbers may one day cause our nation to fail...
no, dammit, you must submit!
Kneel!
Kneel!
...sigh...
As long as is works … and it has, I will kowtow to the framers of the Constitution.
Of course it doesn't. RaceBannon is merely engaging in a thought experiment.
Yes, as a staunch Republican, I would like the results created by his proposed change, but then again - in contrast to the 'Rats - I detest changing the rules of the game merely so that they work to my advantage.
Rather than adopt RaceBannon's proposal, how about criminal punishment for and/or civil suits against election officials who look the other way when voting fraud is occurring right in front of their faces? That might be an incentive for them to keep the election process fairer.
In fact, if the system that pertained before the 17th Amendment were in effect in 2000 when Her Royal Thighness was first elected, it would be highly improbable that the divided New York legislature would have chosen her for a Senate seat.
Good summary of the issue of Obama's likely constitutional ineligibility...
~~~Pearl of wisdom ... PING!
###
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68,
“These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
It hasn't worked the way the founders intended for quite some time. The electors were not supposed to be "pre pledged" to any particular candidate. They were supposed to be selected for their own character and knowlege. Then they were supposed to select the President. They were not conceived of as a mere rubber stamp to a decision already made by direct vote. The only part that is still limping along is that which gives small population states more say. But that is increasing less so as the big urban areas come to dominate big state votes, and as the increased numbers of electors that the "big" states have just due to their larger population, outweighs the little advantage the small states get from their two senatorial seats. IOW, it's become increasingly like a direct popular vote.
It was also conceived as a "cut out" between the passions of the people or any machinations of cabal, faction or party. Yet not a single elector raised an objection, nor even requested verification of eligibility, not surprising since the electors are now selected by the candidate or the state party of the candidate, and then selected by the voters only indirectly (in most states) by their vote for the candidate. Early on, the electors weren't even themselves elected by the people of some states, but rather appointed by the legislatures thereof. You can see this was the intent by the wording of the wording of the Constitutional provision involved:
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.
The current system is no where near the original intent, but the changes have come at the state level, using that "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" language make the system less republican and more democratic (small "r" and small "d").
The Ellectoral College has nothing to do with a presidential candidate’s qualifications. One has to do with who can become president, and the other has to do with how a president is chosen. They are two seperate parts of the Constitution.
If someone not born a citizen of the U.S. were to be elected president, it would be the states’ fault, as it is they who determine who gets on their ballots.
“It has allowed small geographical areas of unique population criteria to dictate what the rest of each state declares as winner”
Well, see, that’s just not true. Unless by “unique population criteria” you mean areas with populations that make up a state’s majority. What you really mean to say is that voting blocks can prove to be decisive. Or to put it another way, voting blocks can tip elections. It’s true, geographical areas or ethnic groups that vote as one block do play an important role. But they don’t decide an election all on their own.
Who’s to say which particular votes put a candidate over the top? I know voting blocks are seen as decisive by political parties, because blocks are a part of conventional political strategy; they matter to journalists because journalists want to make the election intriguing; they matter to historians because historians want to tell a comprehensible story. But how much do unions, blacks, or panhandlers matter in a technical sense? A candidate wins if he gets as many votes as his opponent plus one. He needs all those votes, not just the votes of one block or another.
“Hillary is just another example of the flawed logic behind the 17th Amendment.
Without it, our Senators would be more loyal to their STATES, than to some National Political Party”
Come, now. We had national political parties right out of the gate in 1790. It didn’t take the 17th amendment to innaugurate them.
Please try to keep the nomemclature straight, all this is complicated enough without messing up the terms.
The Certificate of Live Birth is what the state receives from the hospital, doctor, or other witness to the birth. It is usually signed by the doctor, the hospital registrar and a parent or other "informant".
This is a Certificate of Live Birth, from 1963.
What The One posted, or had posted on KOS, Fight the smears and Factcheck, is a Certification of live birth. This is what Obama apparently provided:
Here's another, produced about the same time as Obama's supposedly was
The Certification is just an abstract, generated upon request, and not an original document of kind. You get a Certification, whether your birth was in Hawaii, or outside of it and regardless of which of the three forms of "Birth Certificate" is on record with the state. (- Certificate of Live Birth - Certificate of Delayed Birth - Certificate of Hawaiian Birth) Note however that is does show place of birth, but being a computer generated document, it's relatively easy to alter or counterfeit.
Note the fold visible on the second certification, and more importantly the seal, easily visible from a scan of the front of the document. Neither feature is present in the Obama version. They should be.
You must not have read the article. I fully understand how the Electoral College works. My point was that no one is allowed to talk about Barry's lineage, his origins, or his birth records. It may soon become treasonous to even ask questions. There has been agreement between the Obama Regime and the major networks not to breathe a word of it. To quote the article:
Now comes Barack Hussein Obama, a man of mixed parentage... born to an American mother, an African father (a citizen of Kenya and a British subject), and subsequently adopted at age 6 by an Indonesian stepfather... who became the presumptive president-elect of the United States on November 4, 2008.
However, as certain as his lineage may be, his citizenship is just as uncertain. A number of details of Obama’s life have raised serious questions as to his eligibility to serve as President. Article II, Section 1(4) of the U.S. Constitution says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
So the question arises, is Barack Obama a “natural born” citizen? Putting that question into context, WorldNetDaily (WND) columnist Janet Porter asks in a January 6 column, “What if an impostor from another country ran for the presidency and won? What if the media blocked any news of his birthplace and citizenship? What if the media censorship even blocked paid advertising which tried to expose it?
“What if no one had the courage to challenge or verify it? What if he was inaugurated illegally? What if the military had to answer to a commander in chief who was illegitimate? What if every law he signed was invalid? And finally, “What if it all happened on our watch?”
I also enjoy RaceBannon's idea. But there is no way the Constitution should be modified to suit one voting block's whim or loss.
And if there's one thing that any conservative might have learned over the past eight years, electing a law-abiding Secretary of State is critical to maintaining each state's honest elections.
"It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." - Joseph Stalin
True, but my point is that the law should come down hard on any Secretary of State (or other state or federal officials) who is not law abiding. (Incidentally, in some states, the Secretary of State is not elected but rather appointed by the governor. In those states, electing a law-abiding governor is the way to go.)
Prophetic!
Agreed and agreed!
“The Electoral College has not failed.”
Bingo!
It is clear, however, that people failed.
Below is a portion of the email I sent to the author of the
article. Perhaps he will explore the more difficult issue.
*******
Thank you for this article, but there is an even more disturbing article that I challenge you to write.
On January 8, 2009 each Senator and Representative, Republican and Democrat alike, failed to exercise his or her oath of office to defend the Constitution. The failure occurred when they refused to exercise the authority granted to them by 3 USC 15 as a means of resolving any question of a President elect’s qualification.
The recent joint session of Congress, convened solely for the purpose of examining and challenging or accepting the electoral votes, was intended as a check against any irregularity that may have slipped by the College.
It cannot be argued this is a new and uncertain area, there is a clear remedy provided by the 20th Amendment in the event a candidate is found unqualified...
“’The Ellectoral Electoral College has nothing to do with a presidential candidate’s qualifications.’
‘You must not have read the article. I fully understand how the Electoral College works. My point was that no one is allowed to talk about Barry’s lineage, his origins, or his birth records.’”
The article’s body, it’s true, was about the possibility that Obama was foreign born. I was reacting mostly to the title, which I think was a horrible choice.
President Bush is also sworn to uphold and defend our constitution in this instance. He is also the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. Some cop.
“…in this instance.”
Perhaps, under a “captain of the ship” viewpoint. However, in a government constructed with checks and balances, those who are sworn to defend the constitution are given authority to do so only within the scope of their office.
It can be argued President Bush is the chief law enforcement officer only of federal laws – which is the way we should want it. The violation of laws in this instance appears limited to state election laws which carry criminal penalties for falsely certifying eligibility to serve in an elected office.
If one can show the failure of a Secretary of State (or a combination thereof) to take any steps to validate the certification presented by a candidate violated a federal law, then it would appear Bush has a duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.