The point of USA elections?

[GregBurch]

WRT the 2000 election, Greg is correct that the SCOTUS cases addressed a narrow aspect of the overall controversy. However, it seems to me that the ultimate result is undisputable (even in theory), since during the controversy, Florida's legislature voted to send to the Electoral College, those electors which had been determined as a result of the certified election, and the U.S. Constitution specifies that a State's electors shall be determined "in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct" (Article II, Section 1).

So, from a perspective of the extent to which the federal government, and SCOTUS, can be legitimately concerned, it was entirely the Florida legislature's prerogative, to decide its State's choice of who should be the U.S. President, and this was in fact done, and thus it cannot reasonably be argued that "Bush was selected [by a 'conservative Supreme Court'], not elected."

BTW, n0mad23 is correct that GW Bush was not the first person to become U.S. President after having arguably not won the popular vote. Bush was, however, the first such President to have been subsequently reelected to a second term.

Also btw, I did a research paper on the Electoral College, shortly after the 2000 election and, among the various things that I found, are that people have been arguing almost since the beginning of the USA, seeking to abolish or at least modify the Electoral College system, that there have been more proposed Constitutional Amendments, on this subject, than on any other, and that the various arguments on behalf of such proposals, are always the same.

I would add that Andy44 is correct, in identifying the basic purpose of the Electoral College, which is to ensure that a candidate for the U.S. Presidency, must concern himself with all the diverse interests in a diverse nation, and not merely the interests of a popular majority. The alternative would be, in the words of one of my source authors, "a recipe for civil war."

Thanks for this post -- it's always nice to have some input from someone who actually knows what they're talking about :lol:

If you go back and read the material surrounding the drafting of the US Constitution as an indication of "original intent" (which, BTW, is a perfectly legitimate and common element of legal methodology, used all the time when construing legislation of any kind), you see that David is exactly right about not only the intent of the creation of the Electoral College, but also how those principles apply in the overall assessment of the 2000 Florida presidential vote. The basic principle was that the US federal republic was to be, in largest part, a set of institutions that was to be run by and be responsive to the states as its major constituency. Only the lower house of the national legislature was to be "democratic" on a national scale in the sense that contemporaries would understand. Thus the act of the Florida legislature David refers to would stand as the ultimate legitimizing factor in the Florida presidential election, to the minds of a majority of the Founders.

That last is a very good point, and one I haven't seen discussed in a long time. Naturally, one doesn't hear much about it, because it has served the interest of so many to keep the "Bush stole the election" idea alive.

 

[Missioncmdr]

You can "write-in" protest votes here, too. I keep advocating "no confidence," but voting for the lessor of Two Evils is somewhat of a U.S. tradition.

Did anyone see the episode on South Park that spoke to this theme?

Personally, I hate people who use the write-in vote (expecially more if it is in a stupid protest and that person writes-in Mickey Mouse or something equally silly). As I see a write-in vote is simply a wasted vote that could go to a perfectly good third-party or independent candidate. Why? Because in almost every state, write-in votes are not even counted.

What is worse is that third-parties and independents bust their ass getting on the ballot in most and enough states.

And on your mention on South Park, I assume you are talking about the episode with the giant douche and the turd sandwich? I hate that episode because it also purports the idea that there are two and only two candidates in a Presidential election to choose from.

 

[zerofay32]

For the eight people that said they care but won't vote, they all better be under the age of 18 come election day. It's impossible to "care" about these elections but not "care" enough to vote.

 

[Andy44]

Personally, I hate people who use the write-in vote (expecially more if it is in a stupid protest and that person writes-in Mickey Mouse or something equally silly). As I see a write-in vote is simply a wasted vote that could go to a perfectly good third-party or independent candidate. Why? Because in almost every state, write-in votes are not even counted.

What is worse is that third-parties and independents bust their ass getting on the ballot in most and enough states.

And on your mention on South Park, I assume you are talking about the episode with the giant douche and the turd sandwich? I hate that episode because it also purports the idea that there are two and only two candidates in a Presidential election to choose from.

I couldn't care less about people who "bust their ass" to get on a ballot, unless they represent my interests. Elections do not work on the labor theory of value. And aside from a few exceptions, most people who try so hard to gain power over their fellow man are not worth worrying about. If your candidate is one of those exceptions, he may get my vote.