[Vision2020] Presidential Elections - can we clarify?

[John Moss]

Dear Tom, et al,

If Tom's statement "Candidates with the most votes win" is referring to
popular vote, then he is incorrect with regards to the Constitution.  If his
statement meant "Candidates with the most electoral votes win," then he is
accurately depicting what the Constitution says.

However, since that statement appears in a post criticizing Mr. Nieuwsma's
defense of the electoral college, my guess is he was referring to the
popular vote.  When making a broad-sweeping reference to what the
Constitution says ("Don't wait for the movie.  Read the book"), I highly
recommend quoting the actual Document:

Article II, Section I:

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of
Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by
Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of
the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the
Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of
the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of
the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an
equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately
chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority,
then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner
chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken
by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for
this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the
States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the
greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if
there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse
from them by Ballot the Vice President.

We see in Clause 2 that the states appoint electors, and in Clause 3, we see
that the electors vote for President.

This is not a popular vote (e.g., "Candidates with the most votes win.")
This is a state-based electoral vote; it would be accurate to say
"Candidates with the most electoral votes win."

So, if we are going to talk about what the original founding fathers wrote
in the Constitution (we can debate later whether what they wrote was right
or wrong), we should at least accurately quote what they originally wrote.

John Moss



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Hansen" <tomh@FNA.fsn.uidaho.edu>
To: "'Joshua Nieuwsma'" <joshuahendrik@yahoo.com>; "vision"
<vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections


> Mr. Nieuwsma stated:
>
> "A simple majority candidate is a bad idea and makes for bad politics. And
> who says that they are preferred? Only the people who are on the simple
> majority side. Those in the minority, however huge it might be, are
> generally not happy with the events."
>
> My suggestion, Mr. Nieuwsma:  Don't wait for the movie.  Read the book.
It
> is titled "The Constitution of the United States of America".  Candidates
> with the most votes win.  Programs that garner the most "yes" votes are
> enacted.  End of discussion.
>
> I do believe that this discussion is seriously becoming ludicrous.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Nieuwsma [mailto:joshuahendrik@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: vision
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Presidential Elections
>
>
> A simple majority candidate is a bad idea and makes for bad politics. And
> who says that they are preferred? Only the people who are on the simple
> majority side. Those in the minority, however huge it might be, are
> generally not happy with the events. Even in small situations, like school
> student body elections, close elections cause bad feelings among the
> students. The same in individual classrooms. So expand it to a national
> level, and you have big trouble. That's how you get assassinations and
> military states. Not everyone is as willing to accept a 49.99% defeat as
you
> might be, Mr. Hansen. And some people are willing to fight over it, on
both
> sides. That's my point. It's not a good idea. I don't like the electoral
> college either, but I do think that it has served as a scapegoat in
several
> close elections in our nations history. I am arguing that the concept of
> simple majority is misplaced and misapplied in politics. It is a very
> dangerous way&! nbsp;to decide national issues and leaders.
>
> By the way, Mr. Hansen, most of the original founders of the united States
> were against party politics, knowing that they are 1) divisive, 2)
> threatening to freedom and liberty, 3) a horrible way to elect reps (i.e.
> the average "republican" or "democrat" will vote party line regardless of
> beliefs or morals). George Washington, in his farewell address, as I
recall,
> or in a similar address, warned against them. But parties and cliques
being
> human nature, they arose anyhow. And have caused problems ever since.
>
> out for today,
>
> Joshua Nieuwsma
>
> Thomas Hansen <tomh@FNA.fsn.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> Visionaires -
>
> Mr. Nieuwsam's argument doesn't hold water (let alone the hot air that is
> intended). A majority candidate is always preferred. Last time I checked
> 50.000000000000001% is larger than 49.99999999999999999999999% and
reflects
> a majority. To maintain the electoral college just so we would have
> something to blame when elections go "wrong" is beyond stupidity.
>
> Mr. Niewsma stated:
>
> "And Mr. Hansen, I think you missed Pastor Wilson's point. Two opposite
> directions (i.e. not facing same way) is not the same thing as two
different
> choices. Both the Dems and the Reps are socialists. Just one is more open
> about it."
>
> As it should be. The current two-party system is the result of over 200
> years of political evolution within the United States. One way to develope
> a viable third party is to create one that a large percentage of the
people
> support not only with ballots but with money.
>
> For your information, ind! ependent candidates (candidates not affiliated
> with
> any political party) have been elected as state governors, US
> Representatives, and US Senators.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>