US Presidential Election 2012

[Munnkeyman]

Just wondering is Young Dan still banned I'd love to hear his input to this thread, it should be entertaining!!!

Barack HUSSEIN OSama is an alien, his parents come from planetismals
orbiting Tau Ceti. (Over 12 light years away). Which means he can't be President. Irish people



If that isn't proof enough, then what is?

Is that good enough jinnyjoe?


p.s. Count I'm sorry, Mods delete as necessary.

[jinnyjoe]

So would I but there were like thirty three strikes ...

Haha, ah Dan Dan Dan, he never learns and now we cannot be entertained what a pity.

[jinnyjoe]

Barack HUSSEIN OSama is an alien, his parents come from planetismals
orbiting Tau Ceti. (Over 12 light years away). Which means he can't be President. Irish people



If that isn't proof enough, then what is?

Is that good enough jinnyjoe?


p.s. Count I'm sorry, Mods delete as necessary.

Dan would be proud of you Munnkeyman!!

[Munnkeyman]

Dan would be proud of you Munnkeyman!!

Glad I could oblige.

Count very interesting OP with a huge variety of sources for info, I'll be
back with something more pertinent to add to the discussion when I've read up a bit more.

p.s. When, sorry I mean if, Sarah Palin wins, will that mean all of the 2012er's were right to misconstrue information into a doomsday scenario prophecy?

[Count Bobulescu]

What I wrote is correct in the absolute sense. It's not some mere formality or technicality. US presidents are not chosen by the people but by the EC (or if they don't give a majority to one candidate, the Congress).

Much as I dislike using Wikipedia as a source, the article you linked to gives the position clearly - "A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. " - my emphasis.


BTW, What is it you think I got wrong in my earlier post?



Far from paying scant attention to the EC, the declared candidates for president are giving it 100% of their attention. They're spending a fortune to ensure the election of their preferred candidates to it in the expectation that those worthies will reciprocate when the presidential election comes around.

It's the EC election that all the razzmatazz is about. The actual presidential election is an arid little affair by comparison.

Baron, lets see if we can clear this up with one post. I think you may be misunderstanding the process. We risk going off on a fruitless tangent.

Although I didn’t see it myself as I skimmed over the Wiki piece, I will assume your citation correct. That is to say it is legally and factually correct, and I have no dispute with that, but it misses the larger point.

I’ll use the 2008 Presidential Election as an example of how the process works.
The members of the State Legislatures, in conjunction with their respective parties choose who will be state and party candidates for the EC. This is a local county level process of bargaining to select party officials based on which of their party Presidential candidates’ legislators wish to support. Once the proposed EC members for each party are chosen, they form groups called “Slates” around their preferred candidate, and their names and slates appear on the ballot in their party’s State “Primary” election to choose the Presidential nominee. It’s crucial to remember that from each State only one group Rep or Dem (not both) of EC candidates will ever make it to the EC.

So, I’m a member of the Democratic Party in MD, which has ten EC votes. I walk into my Primary election voting booth, (remember, only party members can vote in Primaries, mostly), and I see that my party’s original list of ten Presidential candidates has now shrunk to four. Clinton, Obama, and two other no-hopers. I also see that Clinton has a Slate of 6 EC candidates supporting her, while Obama only has 4. This tells me that the MD State Party establishment, would prefer if I voted for Clinton. I vote Obama. Let’s assume 1M party members voted in the Primary and 600,000 chose like I did and 400k went for Hilary. Obama wins, party establishment rebuked, on to the next state and so forth.

On to the GE and Obama wins MD. He gets all ten of the MD EC votes. He loses Texas and gets none of their 34 EC votes. EC votes are distributed on a winner-take-all basis. It is much more important for candidates to win the Primary and GE. Then the EC will fall into line.

Long winded way of explaining that the Presidential candidates cannot be sure who the members of the EC will be until after GE. It would, therefore, be pointless for Obama to spend time and money courting the Texas Democratic Party EC candidates, if he thinks he will ultimately loose the state to McCain.

Hope that clears it up, and I can pass on critiquing your post in detail.

[Count Bobulescu]

Barack HUSSEIN OSama is an alien, his parents come from planetismals
orbiting Tau Ceti. (Over 12 light years away). Which means he can't be President. Irish people



If that isn't proof enough, then what is?

Is that good enough jinnyjoe?


p.s. Count I'm sorry, Mods delete as necessary.

No worries. But bejaysus, if I were you, I’d try selling that info to “The Donald Trump”. That’s exactly the sort of stuff he is looking for

[Baron von Biffo]

Baron, lets see if we can clear this up with one post. I think you may be misunderstanding the process. We risk going off on a fruitless tangent.

Not a tangent I think, but two parallel threads.

The point I'm trying to make is that the US presidential election takes place on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December (what were they smoking?) of the relevant year and that if a popular election is permitted in any state in the preceding November it will be to elect members to the Electoral College.

The event popularly referred to as the US presidential election is actually the EC election and that's why I believe it would be a more accurate title for the thread.

Although I didn’t see it myself as I skimmed over the Wiki piece, I will assume your citation correct. That is to say it is legally and factually correct, and I have no dispute with that, but it misses the larger point.

On the contrary - it's exactly the point. Since the popular vote is about electing Electors rather than electing a president, it has, as the article says, "no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the [presidential] election"

I’ll use the 2008 Presidential Election as an example of how the process works.
The members of the State Legislatures, in conjunction with their respective parties choose who will be state and party candidates for the EC. This is a local county level process of bargaining to select party officials based on which of their party Presidential candidates’ legislators wish to support. Once the proposed EC members for each party are chosen, they form groups called “Slates” around their preferred candidate, and their names and slates appear on the ballot in their party’s State “Primary” election to choose the Presidential nominee. It’s crucial to remember that from each State only one group Rep or Dem (not both) of EC candidates will ever make it to the EC.

So, I’m a member of the Democratic Party in MD, which has ten EC votes. I walk into my Primary election voting booth, (remember, only party members can vote in Primaries, mostly), and I see that my party’s original list of ten Presidential candidates has now shrunk to four. Clinton, Obama, and two other no-hopers. I also see that Clinton has a Slate of 6 EC candidates supporting her, while Obama only has 4. This tells me that the MD State Party establishment, would prefer if I voted for Clinton. I vote Obama. Let’s assume 1M party members voted in the Primary and 600,000 chose like I did and 400k went for Hilary. Obama wins, party establishment rebuked, on to the next state and so forth.

The primaries are private affairs of the parties. They decide which candidate the party will throw its weight behind. They're of only incidental interest to the main point we're discussing. We might note in passing that non-party candidates don't have to go through a primary process.

On to the GE and Obama wins MD. He gets all ten of the MD EC votes. He loses Texas and gets none of their 34 EC votes. EC votes are distributed on a winner-take-all basis. It is much more important for candidates to win the Primary and GE. Then the EC will fall into line.

It's this paragraph, and particularly the bit I've emphasised, that shows why it's important for understanding of the process to distinguish between the EC election and the presidential election.

Obama didn't win Maryland and he didn't lose Texas because he wasn't contesting them. He wanted to be president not a member of the EC.

Let's look a little more closely at what actually happened. There was to be a presidential election that year so the states had to select members for the EC. The constitution sets out the formula for determining how many electors each state shall have but leaves it up to the individual states to determine how they are chosen.

There is no constitutional requirement on the states to allow popular participation in the selection of Electors. It has happened in the past that state legislatures picked the Electors without recourse to a general election. The last time that happened was 1876 in Colorado but it remains constitutionally valid and could happen again.

In modern times what happens is that the states allow a popular vote and the candidates associate themselves with one or other of the presidential candidates. Each state has its own mechanism for using the popular vote to pick particular electors.

Going back to your example then we can see that when Obama was campaigning in those states, and the others, he wasn't asking the voters to support him (because they're not allowed to vote in presidential elections) but to support the EC candidates associated with him. Obama didn't win Maryland but EC candidates associated with him did. He didn't lose Texas but the EC candidates associated with him did.

And now for the really important bit - The EC doesn't have to 'fall into line' as you put it. We've established that Maryland and Texas returned 10 Electors associated with Obama and 34 associated with McCain respectively, but there's no constitutional requirement on them to cast their votes in the presidential election in favour of either candidate. It would be perfectly constitutionally valid for all 44 to vote for Clinton or Nader or anyone else who was born in America, was of the right age and hadn't reached the 10 year limit.

Long winded way of explaining that the Presidential candidates cannot be sure who the members of the EC will be until after GE. It would, therefore, be pointless for Obama to spend time and money courting the Texas Democratic Party EC candidates, if he thinks he will ultimately loose the state to McCain.

When Obama campaigned in Texas he was asking Texans to support candidates who were associated with him. Having been unsuccessful in that quest he could, if he wanted to, have courted the Electors that Texas did return and seek to persuade them to change their allegiance.

Indeed it's open to any qualified aspirant to eschew participation in the popular process entirely and wait until the make-up of the EC is known before launching a campaign to persuade them to vote for him/her.

Hope that clears it up, and I can pass on critiquing your post in detail.

Please don't pass up on detailed analysis of my post. In particular I'd like to know where it is you believe I was incorrect earlier.

[Count Bobulescu]

OK, I can see where this is going. Man, you are sure “worked up” about the title of a thread. Your initial question was……. “Wouldn't "US Electoral College Election 2012" be a more accurate title?”

There are too many inaccuracies in Baron’s Post @.22...to try to respond to each in detail. It’s also clear that you have misinterpreted some things I said, and that you fundamentally don’t understand the process. I’m beginning to wonder if you are trolling. I notice you are also shy on citing sources for the multitude of claims you make.

I’ll try this approach.


I responded that your observation that it was the EC who “formally” elected the Prez was correct in a legal/technical sense, and then attempted to explain, not very well, why changing the title was meaningless in a practical sense. A distinction without a difference.

Now, you are speculating on the theoretical possibilities that could happen with the EC. I am not going to be drawn into that debate. Practical evidence has shown the EC to confirm the popular vote so far.

From the Wiki citation:

“Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[40] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.”

You asked what you got wrong in your earlier post. This,

Baron @# 12 …”Far from paying scant attention to the EC, the declared candidates for president are giving it 100% of their attention. They're spending a fortune to ensure the election of their preferred candidates to it in the expectation that those worthies will reciprocate when the presidential election comes around.

It's the EC election that all the razzmatazz is about. The actual presidential election is an arid little affair by comparison.”

but I didn’t feel the need to point it out at the time.


Footnote # 35 to my Wiki EC citation.
^ United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.: "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.".


You fundamentally don’t understand the process. Presidential candidates are not as you claim giving the EC 100% of their attention. They are giving it zero%. Candidates are currently focused on building their ground operations in the early voting states in order to win their party primary election vote. Then they will focus on winning delegates to their National Party Convention. Once they have won the Party Nomination they can focus on the General Election.

As I explained, not very well, earlier, “candidates for nomination to appointment” (not election), to the EC will be selected by the Republican and Democratic party members in their “Primary Election” votes, between January and June 2012. R’s will select 538, and D’s will select 538. But, only half will ever make it into the EC. Who specifically,will make it in, is unknown until the outcome of the November Presidential Election is known. As Donny Rumsfeld would say, it’s a known unknowable.

Therefore, it would be pointless, for Presidential candidates to waste time, money, energy courting people who may never get to vote, especially when the “system” “encourages”
those who do get to vote, to “fall in line”. Here’s why.

Wiki again:
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged, including one who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be canceled.[39]
So, your scenario of a Presidential candidate sitting out the popular election and then attempting to get members of the EC to break their pledges is possible in theory. But that’s all it is, a theory, and a not very practical one at that.

My last word on this.
If it bothers you so much, why don’t you start a thread about the Electoral College? As you say, they could be parallel threads. I have zero interest in starting such a thread.

[Baron von Biffo]

OK, I can see where this is going. Man, you are sure “worked up” about the title of a thread. Your initial question was……. “Wouldn't "US Electoral College Election 2012" be a more accurate title?”

There are too many inaccuracies in Baron’s Post @.22...to try to respond to each in detail. It’s also clear that you have misinterpreted some things I said, and that you fundamentally don’t understand the process. I’m beginning to wonder if you are trolling. I notice you are also shy on citing sources for the multitude of claims you make.

I’ll try this approach.


I responded that your observation that it was the EC who “formally” elected the Prez was correct in a legal/technical sense, and then attempted to explain, not very well, why changing the title was meaningless in a practical sense. A distinction without a difference.

Now, you are speculating on the theoretical possibilities that could happen with the EC. I am not going to be drawn into that debate. Practical evidence has shown the EC to confirm the popular vote so far.

From the Wiki citation:

“Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[40] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.”

You asked what you got wrong in your earlier post. This,

Baron @# 12 …”Far from paying scant attention to the EC, the declared candidates for president are giving it 100% of their attention. They're spending a fortune to ensure the election of their preferred candidates to it in the expectation that those worthies will reciprocate when the presidential election comes around.

It's the EC election that all the razzmatazz is about. The actual presidential election is an arid little affair by comparison.”

but I didn’t feel the need to point it out at the time.


Footnote # 35 to my Wiki EC citation.
^ United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.: "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.".


You fundamentally don’t understand the process. Presidential candidates are not as you claim giving the EC 100% of their attention. They are giving it zero%. Candidates are currently focused on building their ground operations in the early voting states in order to win their party primary election vote. Then they will focus on winning delegates to their National Party Convention. Once they have won the Party Nomination they can focus on the General Election.

As I explained, not very well, earlier, “candidates for nomination to appointment” (not election), to the EC will be selected by the Republican and Democratic party members in their “Primary Election” votes, between January and June 2012. R’s will select 538, and D’s will select 538. But, only half will ever make it into the EC. Who specifically,will make it in, is unknown until the outcome of the November Presidential Election is known. As Donny Rumsfeld would say, it’s a known unknowable.

Therefore, it would be pointless, for Presidential candidates to waste time, money, energy courting people who may never get to vote, especially when the “system” “encourages”
those who do get to vote, to “fall in line”. Here’s why.

Wiki again:
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged, including one who refuses to vote for any candidate. There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan specify that his or her vote shall be canceled.[39]
So, your scenario of a Presidential candidate sitting out the popular election and then attempting to get members of the EC to break their pledges is possible in theory. But that’s all it is, a theory, and a not very practical one at that.

My last word on this.
If it bothers you so much, why don’t you start a thread about the Electoral College? As you say, they could be parallel threads. I have zero interest in starting such a thread.

It appears I've misjudged you. I thought you were a serious poster but the fact that you dismiss my comprehensive response to your post as trolling shows you're not.

[Count Bobulescu]

A weekly round-up of campaign trail highlights.
Seems there are more lowlights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...N3C_story.html


NYT Week in review. Not exactly campaign trail, but worthwhile nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/we...a.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/

Donald Trump’s letter to Ed NYT, hilarious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/op...rump.html?_r=1

Columnist Gail Collins responds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/op...lins.html?_r=1


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

[C. Flower]

A weekly round-up of campaign trail highlights.
Seems there are more lowlights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...N3C_story.html


NYT Week in review. Not exactly campaign trail, but worthwhile nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/we...a.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/

Donald Trump’s letter to Ed NYT, hilarious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/op...rump.html?_r=1

Columnist Gail Collins responds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/op...lins.html?_r=1


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

Is Trump a Tea Bagger, an opportunist, or an opportunist Tea Bagger ?

Good one-liner though..

Actually, I have great respect for Ms. Collins in that she has survived so long with so little talent

.

[Count Bobulescu]

Is Trump a Tea Bagger, an opportunist, or an opportunist Tea Bagger ?

Good one-liner though..

.

Trump is all of the above, and a nuisance as well. It’s the “American way”. We’ll suffer through it.

[Count Bobulescu]

Having just read the recent exchange between Baron and Captain Con over on the Dynastic Politics thread, and going back and quickly looking at the history of that thread, it has prompted me break my commitment to say no more on the issue of the Electoral College here. I'll offer no comment on the other thread here. Hopefully, I’ll have no more to say on the EC after this.

Here goes.

Because I suspect there are many outside the US who don’t “fully” understand the process of electing a US President, I do want to highlight the very fundamental error Baron Von Biffo made in this thread, lest anyone who might side with him in the other thread think he might also be correct in this thread.

Baron, in the 2nd and 3rd grafs at #22 above, states:

“The point I'm trying to make is that the US presidential election takes place on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December (what were they smoking?) of the relevant year and that if a popular election is permitted in any state in the preceding November it will be to elect members to the Electoral College.

The event popularly referred to as the US presidential election is actually the EC election and that's why I believe it would be a more accurate title for the thread.”

What Baron is suggesting here, is, that the voters in the November General Election are “electing”…members of the Electoral College.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In the November GE voters make their simple choice about who they wish for President.

In my reply #23 I pointed out that members of the Electoral College are not elected, they are "appointed", and I cited the relevant constitutional back-up for that claim.

Once I understood, that Baron,. “completely misunderstood”.the process, I decided it was a waste of everyone’s time to get into the detail with him in the various other points he made, because he was building on a false foundation @22. we would end up going around in circles.


Instead, I attempted to give a second better explanation of the process.

I suspect Baron has never seen an actual November US Presidential Election Ballot. By late September/early October 2012 sample ballots will be online that will prove my point.

But what really motivated me to post again was Baron’s reply @24. When confronted with evidence to which he had no answer, all he did was, “play man not ball” and suggested I was not a “serious poster”. He offered ZERO substantive response to the points I raised.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that he was in error, he was unable to admit it. That, reinforces my increasing belief that his motives here, (and perhaps in the Dynastic Politics thread), were ulterior, and that he really was trolling, as opposed to being simply misinformed.

I never actually, accused him of trolling, but did say, (I wondered), (it crossed my mind), that he might be trolling. Captain Con expressed similar concerns in the Dynastic Politics thread.

On that basis, I would ask the admin and mods to be “wary” of Baron. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now. I’m willing to assume he forgot to take his medication.

For the record, at post # 63 in the Militarisation of Emergency Aid to Haiti thread, I conceded to CF that I was in error. No-one has a monopoly on either information or wisdom.

I now “eagerly await” Baron Von Biffo’s thread on the US Electoral College. “Bring it on” Baron!

Apologies for shouting.

[Count Bobulescu]

In an effort to keep the record straight, anyone reading my post at #28 above, who then goes to the Dynastic Politics thread to read the exchange between Baron von Biffo and Captain Con, I referenced, will, as of April 12, 2011 be disappointed, and will not understand what I was referring to. Suffice it to say, that as result of a post I made in that thread, on April 12, critical of Baron’s activity in both threads, CF deleted the entire exchange between BvB and CC O’S, plus my single post within about an hour.

[Count Bobulescu]

Moving right along.

Some Republican News.

As expected, Mitt Romney has announced the formation of an “exploratory committee”. Federal funding clock now starts ticking.

He is currently, the putative Republican frontrunner. Link assesses his chances of winning the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...kFRD_blog.html

Romney parts company with the birthers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53073.html

In 2008 he flip/flopped trying to be all things to all people. Now he sees an opportunity to be the “grown-up” serious candidate, at least when compared with Tea Party types.


Some worthwhile links I omitted in my OP, I’ll add them back.
.
http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.politifact.com/

http://people-press.org/