IMLDS2
|
posted on November 9, 2000 10:57:03 PM new
The reason why? Because those who voted for NADER and BUCHANAN(meant to)would most likely vote DIFFERENT than they did the first time.
Gore is acting like a spoiled brat. He is just like CLINTON thinking the consitution is only meant to bend and break.
<bounce>
|
krs
|
posted on November 9, 2000 11:01:20 PM new
the constitution is meant to bend and adapt.
|
uaru
|
posted on November 10, 2000 12:19:21 AM new
"the constitution is meant to bend and adapt."
It can be amended but it can't be rewritten per say.
The 18th Amendment made intoxicating liquors illegal.
The 21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment.
You don't remove anything from the constitution but you can add to it. In the last 200 years there have been only 14 Amendments... pretty impressive document.
Oh... don't expect the electorial college to be repealed either. Every state with 7 or less electorial votes would be crazy to give up such power, and 2/3rds of the states would have to approve that. It would make as much sense for the less populated states to agree to determine the amount of senators they were allowed based on their population. There is some beauty to the system, even it gets lost in the heat of debates at times.
|
krs
|
posted on November 10, 2000 04:56:15 AM new
Who said rewritten? It bends and adapts under the weight of interpretation.
|
Reamond
|
posted on November 10, 2000 06:18:42 AM new
It must bend and adapt or we would need a Constitutional convention every 2 years.
If it doesn't "bend or adapt" how could we have applied the First Amendment to anything but printed material ? Does the strict constructionist and original intent herd think that the drafters had television, telephones, and the Internet in mind when the Bill of Rights was adopted ?
The Constitution is a living document, was intentionally vague so it could be adapted to changing times. An amendment is to radically change a basic principle of the document, not its application in an ever changing world.
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 06:23:46 AM new
the constitution is meant to bend and adapt.
And there is a procedure for this. It's called a constitutional amendment. These are few and hard to get passed (by design). But it can be done and has been done several times.
The Constitution is a living document, was intentionally vague so it could be adapted to changing times. An amendment is to radically change a basic principle of the document, not its application in an ever changing world.
There is nothing vague whatsoever about the constitution's rules concerning the electoral college. It's all black and white. To change it will require a constitutional amendment, plain and simple.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 10, 2000 06:26 AM ]
|
krs
|
posted on November 10, 2000 06:32:50 AM new
Abin,
So you think an amendment is required to extend the freedom of the press to radio?
And, in case you don't know, the electoral process has been amended, twice (I think).
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 06:50:01 AM new
So you think an amendment is required to extend the freedom of the press to radio?
Of course not. Freedom of the the press and the procedures of the electoral college are separate issues and are dealt with separately by the constitution. This argument is like saying that the constitutional amendment wasn't required in order to allow women the right to vote, but rather it could have been "interpreted" by the Supreme Court.
Some Articles and Amendments to the constitution are intentionally vague, and the First Amendment is an excellent example.
Others are not. To make a change to those requires a constitutional amendment.
And while it's true that the founding fathers had no way to foretell what the future would bring technologically and socially, they were right on the money when they laid out the requirements for changing the constitution. They did have the forsight to realize that amending the constitution would become neccessary in the future. That's why they provided for a (difficult but doable) procedure for doing just that.
Comparing apples and oranges is never valid, and in this circumstance it is even less so.
|
Reamond
|
posted on November 10, 2000 06:54:07 AM new
The electoral college is a constitutional element. But it is up to the states to determin how to apportion their electoral votes, as example, winner take all.
Original Constitutional design, was for the President to be elected by the "electors", which was the Congress.
The modern popular vote and winner take all elements of the electoral college ARE ALL DETERMINED BY STATE LAW AND IN FORM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NOR ARE BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Yet another backwater Republican educated through soundbites, knows nothing about our government or our Constitution.
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 08:36:41 AM new
Reamond:
The modern popular vote and winner take all elements of the electoral college ARE ALL DETERMINED BY STATE LAW AND IN FORM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NOR ARE BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION
The electoral college is indeed outlined in Article II of the US Constitution. The fact that the states have the right to allocate the electors to whomever they choose and in the manner that they choose is irrelevant. A constitutional amendment is required to make the electoral process based on popular voter only.
You might wish to actually read the constitution before commenting on it. And I won't address your uncalled for personal remarks in your last post. They speak for themselves as far as your lack of objectivity and inability to debate in a civil manner are concerned.
|
Reamond
|
posted on November 10, 2000 11:21:17 AM new
Abing-
Whether to have an electorial college or not is not the issue.
The issue is how the electorial college functions, which does not require anything but state action. Three ways to do it presently in use are- apportionment, winner take all, winner has electors that are supposed to vote in his/her favor.
The Constitution speaks to none of these systems. These 3 methods are by no means exhaustive of how the college is determined. The Constitution dictates that there will be an electoral college, it is up to the states how they participate in it.
As usual, you haven't a clue.
|
pattaylor
|
posted on November 10, 2000 11:26:56 AM new
Ahem!
Obviously, I spoke too soon in the other thread.
Reamond, your comment in your last post comes very close to the line.
Everyone, please remember to discuss the topic, not the individual.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Pat Taylor
Moderator
[email protected]
[ edited by pattaylor on Nov 10, 2000 11:27 AM ]
|
Meya
|
posted on November 10, 2000 11:29:51 AM new
Oh man, there goes the record. 
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 11:40:47 AM new
The Constitution speaks to none of these systems. These 3 methods are by no means exhaustive of how the college is determined. The Constitution dictates that there will be an electoral college, it is up to the states how they participate in it.
Thank you for validating my points for me (refer to your bolded remark above).
A constitutional amendment is required to abolish the electoral college altogether. The current implementation of it is irrelevent when we are talking about abolishing it. And, once again, thanks for the insult. My arguments must be effective...
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 11:44:35 AM new
pattaylor:
I have no problem with Reamond's posts. The tone of a post says a lot about the validity of the post itself. I have a pretty thick skin and the insults are amusing more than anything else.
|
biff
|
posted on November 10, 2000 01:22:45 PM new
Done bun can't be undone.
Impropriety, accusations, confusion, less than adept poll workers . . . these have all been a part of the election process for years.
The election does not hinge on Florida. Florida just happens to be the last state submitting the electoral votes necessary to name a winner. Many states ran very close races.
Too many circumstances have changed to allow voters in Florida to have the final decision in naming the president elect. The only way I would personally condone a revote is for it to be nationwide. The propoganda machines are running full throttle and I betcha many folks have changed horses. And there should be no data compiled nor reported until every polling place is closed. A little national consistancy in ballots and polling hours would be nice too.
|
Zazzie
|
posted on November 10, 2000 01:31:54 PM new
When there is a Federal Election in Canada---none of the news services can broadcast any information regarding the outcome until ALL the polling stations are closed--and that is 8PM Pacific Time.
No exit polls--NOTHING !!
The nation has to wait til British Columbia has finished---which means 12 midnight in Ontario and 1:30 AM in Newfoundland
|
krs
|
posted on November 10, 2000 01:35:35 PM new
How about this for an electoral twist.
As of now there are 513 electors submitted by the states--none yet from Florida.
If Gore can tie up the Florida process in court sufficiently to prevent Florida electoral college electors being submitted for admission to the college by the time it convenes, Gore will have a majority of the electors and will win the election by default with his current 260 electoral votes.
|
biff
|
posted on November 10, 2000 01:38:18 PM new
Zazzie
That's definitely a step forward from the good ole USA. The logic of the media and beauracracy here just boggle my mind. Ummm. Think that's intentional?
|
biff
|
posted on November 10, 2000 01:50:48 PM new
now, KRS,
Are you trying to confuse this crystal clear mud?
Is that even allowable? Can a president elect be named without full completion of the election process?
I wouldn't think so . . . but?
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 02:07:17 PM new
If Gore can tie up the Florida process in court sufficiently to prevent Florida electoral college electors being submitted for admission to the college by the time it convenes, Gore will have a majority of the electors and will win the election by default with his current 260 electoral votes.
Nice try. It takes 270 electoral votes to win. Period. If neither candidate reaches that total, it goes to House of Representatives to choose a President. If the House fails it goes to the Senate.
In other words, Gore's only hope if he doesn't reach 270 electoral votes is for the Democrats to take control of the Senate, (or at least a 50/50 split. Then Gore (as VP he is the President of the Senate) could place the tie-breaking vote for himself and he would be the next President.
|
sonyradio
|
posted on November 10, 2000 02:23:18 PM new
It takes 270 electoral votes to win. Period
It's the majority of appointed electorates that determine the presidency according to constitutional scholars. If no Floridian electorates are appointed in time then Gore can win electoral vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/10/politics/10DATE.html
The article is titled Electoral College Vote Need Not Include Florida and the free account is required to read it. Sign up for free if you are not registered.
Just for the record: The article author is none other than much distinguished journalist Adam Clymer who endured vulgur public abuse by a famous republican.
|
biff
|
posted on November 10, 2000 02:41:12 PM new
sheesh.
And now New Mexico is back in the "too close to call" category with about 100 votes difference between the cantidates.
|
abingdoncomputers
|
posted on November 10, 2000 02:54:12 PM new
It's the majority of appointed electorates that determine the presidency according to constitutional scholars. If no Floridian electorates are appointed in time then Gore can win electoral vote.
This only applies if the situation in Florida isn't resolved before December 18. The Democrats will be committing political suicide if they drag it out this long.
2 prominant Democratic Senators are already warning Gore not to drag it out for very long.
In the first signs of concern over Gore’s strategy from within his own party, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., the chief Democratic campaign strategist in the Senate, said the country would be best served by bringing the election to a timely and definitive close.
I want Al Gore to win this election but, more than that, I want somebody to win this election,” Torricelli said. “I would urge both Al Gore and George Bush to think of the country — the continuity of government, its stability — and avoid any collateral attacks on the process.”
Breaux, D-La., said through a spokesman, “Both candidates have the right to be assured by the courts that all election laws have been adhered to. This process, however, should not be dragged out over an extended period of time.”
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 10, 2000 02:58 PM ]
|
CleverGirl
|
posted on November 10, 2000 05:20:09 PM new
Abingdom wrote:
the constitution is meant to bend and adapt.
And there is a procedure for this. It's called a constitutional amendment. These are few and hard to get passed (by design). But it can be done and has been done several times.
Abingdon, my man. You seem to be forgetting the Supreme Court.
|
