US Politics?

[lost_grrl]

Originally Posted by tailhook

If I recall my american history propery.. wasn't it originally? Something like the VP was decided from the runner up in electoral votes. It was fixed in the 12th amendment to the constitution due to problems that arose. In 1800, Jefferson and Burr tied for electoral votes and it ended up being decided in the House of Representatives. After that, they fixed the system so it wouldn't happen again.

-TH

You recall correctly.

[clueless1der]

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

Y I was so excited the first time I voted!

Me too. I had moved two or so months before and was worried that I would have to drive from Florida all the way to Georgia just to vote. Thank god, my Grandma told me about about Absentee Ballots.

[lost_grrl]

Originally Posted by clueless1der

Me too. I had moved two or so months before and was worried that I would have to drive from Florida all the way to Georgia just to vote. Thank god, my Grandma told me about about Absentee Ballots.

Dork! Good thing you found out BEFORE driving to Georgia

[clueless1der]

Yeah, my gran was a smart lady. I haven't seen you online lately; how have you been?

Here is a question:

What does the Vice President actually do? I mean I haven't seen Chenny do anything besides have heartattacks.

[clueless1der]

I had to look it up.

Wiki...

he formal powers and role of the vice president are limited by the Constitution to becoming President in the event of the death or resignation of the President and acting as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate. As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College. For example, in the first half of 2001, the Senators were divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats and Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave the Republicans the Senate majority. (See 107th United States Congress.)


The informal roles and functions of the Vice President depend on the specific relationship between the President and the Vice President, but often include drafter and spokesperson for the administration's policy, as an adviser to the president, as Chairman of the Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as a Member of the board of the Smithsonian Institution, and as a symbol of American concern or support. Their influence in this role depends almost entirely on the characteristics of the particular administration. Cheney, for instance, is widely regarded as one of George W. Bush's closest confidantes. Al Gore was an important advisor to President Bill Clinton on matters of foreign policy and the environment. Often, Vice Presidents will take harder-line stands on issues to ensure the support of the party's base while deflecting partisan criticism away from the President. As under the American system the president is both head of state and head of government, the ceremonial duties of the former position are often delegated to the Vice President. He or she may meet with other heads of state or attend state funerals in other countries, at times when the administration wishes to demonstrate concern or support but cannot send the President himself. Not all vice presidents are happy in their jobs. John Nance Garner, who served as vice president from 1933 to 1941 under President Franklin Roosevelt, famously remarked that the vice presidency wasn't worth "a warm bucket of piss," although reporters allegedly changed the spelling of the last word for print.
In recent years, the vice presidency has frequently been used to launch bids for the presidency. Of the 13 presidential elections from 1956 to 2004, nine featured the incumbent president; the other four (1960, 1968, 1988, 2000) all featured the incumbent vice president. Former vice presidents also ran, in 1984 (Walter Mondale), and in 1968 (Richard Nixon, against the incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey).
Since 1974, the official residence of the vice president and his family has been Number One Observatory Circle, on the grounds of the United States Naval Observatory in Washington, DC.

[lost_grrl]

Originally Posted by clueless1der

Yeah, my gran was a smart lady. I haven't seen you online lately; how have you been?

Great! I haven't been very active on Buddy TV (and for that reason they yanked my Mod status, which they have now restored). But now that Lost is on, I am back.

How are you?

[tailhook]

Originally Posted by Pitchy

Yet it does exactly that. Look at high population states. California gets 55 votes, Texas gets 34, New York 31, Florida with 27. Those are the big states. If a someone were to win 10 of the big states, but the other 40 little states vote for the other guy, the 10 big states can win the election. Doesn't matter how close the votes were in the 10 big states, the electoral votes go to the winner.

Without getting into hanging chads and voter fraud... Gore had more votes over all.

Sure did.. but the system has treated us pretty well for over 200 years now. Everyone knows the deal with the electoral college going in.

Originally Posted by Pitchy

He won by popular vote, but just didn't win because of the states those voters were in.

I.e. the big states.

Originally Posted by Pitchy

I did not vote for Gore even though I live in TN... but I do find it slightly disturbing that one man can win an election but still have fewer popular votes over all.

There is no system at all that is perfect. When the countries got setup the founders wanted each of the states to have an equal say per their respective population.

Originally Posted by Pitchy

So fewer people voted for Bush, but he still managed to win because of the big state vote values.

You have it backwards. Bush didn't take California or New York in either election. The only reason Gore even won the popular vote was because of the big state vote values in his states. If anything those states were having more of a say in the election than their respective population allowed and the electoral college filtered that out. Disregard the electoral college and it only increases the power of those states to override the smaller ones. It may not be a perfect system.. but it does work for what it was intended to do.

Originally Posted by Pitchy

Good point on the census and how it dynamically shapes the electoral vote, but I still do not agree with one state having more power than another state.

It works the other way too. Lets say we give all states an equal electoral value.. say 10 each. Now you have Rhode Island and its 1 million people having the exact same power as 20 times that number in New York and California to decide an election. You can't go solely on the popular vote as it'll stack the power to the largest states.. and you can't just give all states a set equal value or it'll stack the power to the smallest states. Hence the electoral college to bring a balance based on population. Once again... I wouldn't call it perfect.. but its worked.

Originally Posted by Pitchy

It's like saying my vote in TN is not equal to a vote in TX.

It isn't in a popular vote either. You are at the whim of the larger states that have 10 times the voting power you do due to population. As such... your state concerns gets short shrift because all the candidates have to do is go after the big state voters and cater to them to win. They're going to inevitably go to the biggest bang for their buck to get the most voters with as little money as possible. You, you get ignored.

-TH

[lost_grrl]

The electoral college has served us well. It was especially important prior to our current "Information Age" when a Direct Democracy (popular vote) would have been a huge mess. Right now, if you do the math, the Electoral College gives a state about the same percentage of the total that a direct vote would do...very small states (like Rhode Island) get a small bump in their percentage with the EC.

I think that the EC would be a much better election system if candidates were awarded a percentage of their state's electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote that they won. That way those people who voted for the person who did not win the vote would not feel as if their votes had been tossed out. I think it would make people feel like the system better represented the actual voice of the people--that their vote counted--without going though the process of designing an entirely new election system (which would involve amending the constitution).

[clueless1der]

Originally Posted by lost_grrl

Great! I haven't been very active on Buddy TV (and for that reason they yanked my Mod status, which they have now restored). But now that Lost is on, I am back.

How are you?

Glad to hear it. I'm fine- have grades due next week, so I thought it was nice of abc to broadcast Lost at a convenient time for me.

I was on youtube... and found this.

This is (my other boyfriend) Hugh Laurie (Yeah, Dr. House) singing about politics and what we really need to do to change things. Maybe he should become a politician, too.... add that to his list of skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J_Yq-o-H4