"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:c0p6n113ahh7avuou9cim576vs2meu4o6l@4ax.com...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:18:15 -0000, "Mens sana" <Spambush@Area51.cia>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:5me5n1lme3348cuqmqmh5k14101q57o3rg@4ax.com...

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:20:29 -0000, "Mens sana" <Spambush@Area51.cia>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:7g74n1p85qqtu9l52jms57so16v3innht0@4ax.com...

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:48:41 -0000, "Mens sana" <Spambush@Area51.cia>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:lgp2n1d6vdv9ccshbppovgea5nnskh5h2m@4ax.com...

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:12:17 -0000, "Mens sana"
<Spambush@Area51.cia>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvm1n1pttec8tdn3ghcg31h4vfag67o19h@4ax.com...

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:18:13 -0000, "Mens sana"
<Spambush@Area51.cia>
wrote:

"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:fn80n1hliual4s4rl34nq8kr984d9d10fk@4ax.com...

Paris Burning: How Empires End

France will still be thriving when 'America' is a paragraph in a
history
book.

America was a Representative Democracy when all of Europe was
Kingdoms, Empires and Dukedoms. America will be a Representative
Democracy when all of Europe are Emirates and Islamic states.

And one of the reasons why the American experiment failed is the
willingness
of Americans to delude themselves.

America is not a democracy. The Founding Fathers of America were
horrified
at the thought that the great unwashed might have any say in who
ruled
them.
The constitution they fashioned clearly established America as a
plutocracy.

There's a very good chance that children alive today will one day
be
telling
their grandchildren about the former American empire.

The US is a representative republic it is democratic because all
eligible adults get to vote for their representatives.

But the only 'representative' who really matters is the President and
only
the members of the Electoral College get to vote on candidates for
that
office.

Regardless of who the candidates are in the popular 'election', if
the
Electoral College votes for Mikey Kipinski from Dog Puke, Indiana
then
Mikey
will move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and there's not a damn thing
any
American can do about it.

Read article II of your constitution.

Please give me an example of a presidential election where faithless
electors appointed a president other then the one who won the
electoral vote.

I'm not too clear on what you mean here, the 'electoral vote' is the
vote
of
the Electoral College so obviously your request as written is
meaningless.

Each candidate for president within a state is given a slate of
electors from that state who promise to vote within the electorial
college for that candidate for president. California has 55 electorial
votes hence 55 electors. Kerry won the popular vote in California in
2004 so the 55 electors that promised to vote for Kerry were allowed
to vote in the electorial college. If one of these 55 electors decided
to vote for someone other then Kerry then that elector would be
considered faithless.

Perhaps you mean the 'popular vote'. In that case, in 1876 Samuel J.
Tilden
won the popular vote but the Electoral college appointed Rutherford B.
Hayes*. In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but the Electoral
College appointed Benjamin Harrison and of course in 2000 Al Gore won
the
popular vote but the Electoral College appointed Bush.

Popular vote ain't a pay window in presidential politics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the colloquialism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in each of these examples, while the popular vote was ignored, the
person appointed by the Electoral College did participate in the
popular
'election'.

There is however no constitutional requirement for the US as a whole or
any
individual state to hold a popular election for the Presidency (see
Colorado
in 1876).

The Electoral College has absolute discretion to appoint to the
Presidency
any natural born American who is at least 35 years old and hasn't
previously
been appointed twice**. So if they pick Mikey Kipinski from Dog Puke,
Indiana, the band will play 'Hail to the Chief' every time Mikey walks
into
a room and there's absolutely nothing (legal) any American can do about
it.

But the electors belong to a slate who vow to support their candidate.
Those that vote for Kipinski are faithless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can call them faithless if you want, you can revile them and hold
them
up to public contempt. What you can't do is over rule them. If they vote
for
Kipinski then Kipinski becomes President. That's it - no American has any
legal option but to accept him.

Faithless elector is an actual term.
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that. But it's only a term, a label. It doesn't represent anything
other than a classification of the behaviour of the individual in
question.

MS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the American system the power of the Electoral College is absolute.
No
vow made by one of the Electors is constitutionally binding. They may
chose
in their absolute and unfettered discretion to cast their vote for anyone
who meets the qualifying criteria for the office.

As I said earlier, there is no constitutional requirement to hold a
popular
election for President. Colorado chose not to in 1876. In fact the
writings
of many of your Founding Fathers make it clear that they were appalled at
the idea of hoi polloi having a direct input into who should lead them.

Ray v Blair, 343 US 214 allows states to empower political parties to
require formal pledges from Presidential Electors. But many states
don't have any laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The decision in Ray v Blair was based on the premise that the Electors
were not 'Federal Officers' and were thus liable to direction by the
state. However, in Burroughs and Cannon v US (290 U.S. 534), the US
Supreme Court said precisely the opposite, that Electors are Federal
Officers. But these references were obiter dicta and thus neither formally
defined the status of the Electors.

In fact your Supreme Court has never formally defined the status of
Electors but it would be difficult to dispute the reasoning in Burroughs
and Cannon that Electors must be Federal Officers because they perform a
Federal function derived directly from the constitution and which does not
predate the constitution.

This would mean that the Electors are free agents who may cast their vote
as they wish and that state legislatures are acting ultra vires when they
seek to impose any restriction on that freedom.

Mens sana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must bear in mind that your constitution was drawn up by an
aristocratic
group in a very class conscious society. They were men of their time who
simply couldn't accept that clerks, bakers, blacksmiths or women were
capable of making proper choices in matters as important as the
Presidency.

Now you can call that system anything you want but it's not democracy.

As I said earlier the results in a presidential election have never
been changed by faithless electors. There does remain the possibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct. there does indeed remain the possibility and that is why America
is
not a democracy.

10 years ago most Americans would have rejected out of hand any suggestion
that an American President would threaten to veto a bill because it
contained a provision that would restrict his torture of captives but it
has
happened.

By the same token Americans today may not be able to envisage a situation
where the Electoral College, or a majority of the Electors would chose a
President who would be despised by most US citizens - say for example a
communist. Yet the Electoral College has the absolute power under your
constitution to do just that.

You might also keep in mind that the judgment in Bush v Gore (00-949),
ruled that the decision of state legislatures to grant the franchise in
presidential elections is not irrevocable. Popular 'elections' for the US
Presidency exist only by grace and favour of the individual state
legislatures.

Call that what you like but it's not democracy.

Mens sana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2004 the Nation magazine urged that three Republican electors step
forward to spare the nation four years of George W. Bush. Never
happened. In 2000 Barbara Lett-Simmons, a Gore elector from
Washington, D.C., abstained in order to protest that jurisdiction's
lack of any voting member in Congress.

* Interestingly, Rutherford B. Hayes was almost as corrupt as the
current
incumbent and was known to his contemporaries as "Rutherfraud".

** The constitution allows the Electoral College to appoint to a
further
two
full terms, someone who ahs served less than (I think) two years as
President having been elevated from the Vice Presidency to complete the
term
of a dead or otherwise incapacitated President.

There's a scary thought - you could have 10 years of Cheney if he tops
the
Murder Monkey at the right time.

The electoral college does not appoint successor Presidents. The rules
for succession are set forth in the Constitution.

In my effort to be concise perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I said
"having been elevated from the Vice Presidency" I understood the words to
mean, elevated in accordance with the constitution.

If the Murder Monkey had another pretzel moment and died, Cheney would be
elevated to the Presidency. If the timing was right, the Electoral
College
could subsequently appoint him to 2 full terms. So you could have 10
years
of The United States of Halliburton :)

The electoral college meets only at the time of a presidential
election.

So I should keep my Halliburton stock?

If you think Cheney has it in him to take out the Murder Monkey then
Halliburton's a buy :-)

MS.