The JackB

"When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'." Groucho Marx

Politics

The Electoral College

by Leave a Comment

In less than a week we are going to hold another election for president. If the past serves as any sort of guide there is going to be a big discussion about the significance of the popular vote and The Electoral College.

Since some people are unfamiliar with what it is and how it works I thought that it might be useful to provide some information about it.

Here is a procedural guide to the Electoral College as provided by The National Archives.

“The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 4, 2008). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd Amendment). Each State’s allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States.

The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties. State laws vary on the appointment of electors. The States prepare a list of the slate of electors for the candidate who receives the most popular votes on a Certificate of Ascertainment. The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment. The States send one original, along with two authenticated copies or two additional originals to the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) by registered mail. The Certificates of Ascertainment must be submitted as soon as practicable, but no later than the day after the meetings of the electors, which occur on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008). The Archivist transmits the originals to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR forwards one copy to each House of Congress and retains the original.

The electors meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 15, 2008). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State.

The electors prepare six original Certificates of Vote and annex a Certificate of Ascertainment to each one. Each Certificate of Vote lists all persons voted for as President and the number of electors voting for each person and separately lists all persons voted for as Vice President and the number of electors voting for each person.

If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the Vice President by majority vote, with each Senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes.”

Here is a link to some FAQs about the whole process. I’ll grab a few excerpts that might be of interest.

“What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?

There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State’s electoral votes.

Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State’s system for proportional allocation of votes.For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California’s electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.”

The Library of Congress also provides some useful information. You might want to check it out here. For those who don’t feel like clicking over here is an excerpt that is worth looking at:

“Until 1804, electors cast votes for candidates without saying whether they were voting for president or vice president. This system crashed and burned in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes. It took the House 36 votes before the tie was broken and Jefferson took office as President.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution made sure that electors designate their votes for president and vice president. But, the 12th Amendment leaves in place a tie breaking system by which the House of Representatives breaks a tie on presidential electoral votes and the Senate breaks a tie on vice presidential electoral votes. This leaves open an intriguing possibility. Someday a President and Vice President from different political parties could be forced to serve together! What problems do you predict might occur from such an arrangement? Does it offer any benefits? In 1796, Federalist John Adams was elected the nation’s second president, and Thomas Jefferson, of the Republican party, was elected vice president. How did these men work together? How did their political differences affect their leadership?

In recent elections, the electoral college has voted presidents into office by extremely slim margins, as in the case of John Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon. Electors have failed to vote for the candidates to whom they were pledged, as in the case of the elector who jumped from Michael Dukakis’ ticket to that of Lloyd Bentsen. And William Jefferson Clinton did not win more than 50% of the popular vote in the three-way presidential race of 1992. Clinton did, however, win the electoral vote and become president.”

Crossposted here.

Woman admits making up McCain sticker attack,

by Leave a Comment

There is enough chaos and confusion without people doing foolish things like this. And then to see comments from supporters of both sides claim that this is all a campaign trick is enough to give me a headache.

No matter who wins we are going to hear accusations about a stolen election.

(CNN) — A Republican campaign worker who told police she was assaulted by a man angered by a John McCain sticker on her car admitted she made up the report, the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, assistant police chief said Friday.

Ashley Todd, 20, of College Station, Texas, has been charged with filing a false police report, a misdemeanor, and may face more charges, said Pittsburgh police pokeswoman Diane Richard at a news conference.

Todd is incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail but had not been arraigned Friday night.Todd was a volunteer for a John McCain phone bank in Pittsburgh, the campaign said.

“This has wasted so much time. … It’s just a lot of wasted man hours,” Assistant Police Chief Maurita Bryant said at the same briefing.

The woman told investigators a man approached her Wednesday night at an ATM in Pittsburgh’s East End, put a blade to her neck and demanded money, Richard said. Police said they found “several inconsistencies” in Todd’s statement and she was not seen in surveillance videos taken at the ATM. She was asked to take a polygraph test Friday morning, Richard said. The results were not made public.

Later, Todd came to the police station to help work on a composite sketch of the alleged attacker. When she arrived, Todd “told them she just wanted to tell the truth” — that she was not robbed, and there was no attacker, Bryant said.

Todd originally told police a man “punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her while threatening to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter,” according to a police statement.

Crossposted here.

After The Election

by Leave a Comment

It won’t be long now. Just a few short weeks and we will find out who our new president is going to be. The endless ads on television and radio shows will simply vanish into thin air. Newspaper and magazine ads will be nothing more than simple fish wrap and the signs that sit on lawns will be souvenirs of the campaigns that once were.

It won’t be long before we are given the opportunity to try and determine whether campaign promises are fulfilled or if they were just words that were designed to grab our attention and earn our votes.

It won’t be long before we see whether we remain a house divided or if we can get beyond the partisan bickering and fingerpointing. Will we witness four years of parties praising their politician of choice and slamming the opposition or will we see a change.

A change in which we stop the fingerpointing, the carping and the griping about how bad things are because of the democrats/republicans. A change where we we resume working together to improve life for everyone in the country because we recognize that a stronger America is one that is inclusive of all and not exclusive.

A stronger America where we say that once the election is over it doesn’t matter because we have to work together to improve things. Will we have the common sense to set aside our differences and work together.

That is what I hope for. Call me naive. Call me a silly optimist, but I hope that this is what happens. When it is all said and done one side will win and the other will lose, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t have our expectations exceeded.

So there you have it, my hope for the future. Not laid out as lofty goals of world peace, end to world hunger etc. I am starting with the simple goal of asking that regardless of who is elected we work together to try and improve things for all of us.

It doesn’t have to be just a dream.

Voting Rights- Should American Jews Be Given a Vote

by Leave a Comment

(This post originally appeared on The Muqata. I had intended to post it here as well.)

Last week during a slow moment in shul a few of us began a discussion about voting rights for American Expats and whether American Jews should be allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
It was a very heated discussion and not just because of the fast. Here is a short synopsis of what went on.

Some people felt that if expats became citizens of other countries they simply should not be allowed to vote.

Others took a more nuanced approach and said that if an expat became a citizen of another country, was not paying taxes and lived more than 3/4s of the year outside of the U.S. then they should give up their right to vote.

Still another group maintained that unless you give up your American citizenship you should always retain all rights granted therein.

It is an interesting discussion to me for a variety of reasons. I am Pro-Israel and will always be concerned about Israel’s welfare, but at the moment I live in the U.S. So while I may make aliyah one day I have to look at the U.S. first and Israel second.

None of this negates my love for Israel and for all Jews. None of it means that I am not concerned about what happens to Jews. It just means that I think that the responsible thing to do, the moral thing to do and the Jewish thing to do is to vote according to where I live.

Now I should add that I do not trust any of the American political parties to look out for Israel’s best interest. I think that it is a mistake. Countries are not friends, they are allies. It is a different relationship. Allies require common and mutual interests and when those no longer coincide the relationship ends.

Let’s go back to the discussion regarding voting rights and cover the question of what role should American Jews be given in Israeli politics. Really we should say all Jews, but for this discussion we’ll keep it simple.

If we accept the premise that one should not be given a vote unless one is a citizen than the point is moot. But as one of the participants said it is not that far a leap to suggest that Jews be given a vote in Israeli politics.

Around the world there are sad examples of Jews who have been maimed or murdered supposedly because of Israeli politics so one could say that we all share risk based upon the actions of the government. Why shouldn’t we be given a say in what happens.

For myself I tend to lean towards saying that if you don’t live there you than you shouldn’t vote. Your interests and concerns are not the same as those who do live there.

What do you think?

Crossposted here.