70 replies to this topic

[The Dark Empire]

That would be quite the scandal

[Thrash]

I'm actually looking forward to Obama destroying him in the debates. He'll be standing there with his hands on his hips with his smug face like he did during the GOP debates.

Did I mention I HATE Romney?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Just to be clear: I think Gary Johnson is wrong on nearly every issue, and that he would be incredibly destructive if he ever became president. But since there's no chance of that happening I'm not worried, and I wholeheartedly support voting for him, for two reasons:

1. I'd like to see more parties in this country.

and

2. Every vote he gets is a vote denied to Mitt Romney.

Since I live in Massachusetts, which will be a walk for Obama, I'm probably going to vote for Jill Stein. I don't agree with her on everything, and her hippy-dippy approach gets under my skin, buts it's back to that more parties thing again. I guess you could call me a party animal.

/me nudges. Huh? See what I did there?

On the other hand, I am still very tempted to write myself in. I would not want anyone from a state that's actually in contention to vote for me if they have strong feelings about either of the two mainstream candidates, but if you don't care or you're state is not in contention, remember there's no "h" in my name. Jon Stafford. You have to admit I'd be a pretty awesome president.

[Thrash]

You have to admit I'd be a pretty awesome president.

Only if I was VP to keep you in check. And I know I could fuck up just as much as Biden, if not more so.

[Redezra]

Nas would be your VP.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

No, Nas would be the White House Chief of Staff. Thrash would have to be VP. For one thing, aside from me he's probably the only American old enough.

[Haflinger]

It's pretty sad that the GOP had this election won easily and then they put him as the nominee and threw it all out the window. I wonder what would happen if they were like FU and put someone else out there this late in the game? Has that ever happened before?

I believe the primaries are binding on them; they can't throw him out without amending their own constitution, which would have to happen ... at the convention. Too late.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Haf is correct. Romney is the nominee of the Republican party, a position he holds by virtue of winning a majority of delegates. Theoretically the Republican National Committee could remove him and replace him with someone else, but that has never happened. If something truly egregious were discovered, like Romney was arrested for something, then I could see them doing it. But if they tried to do it in anything but a dire emergency it would probably be an unmitigated disaster. The other complication is that Romney's name is on the ballot, and at this late date it couldn't be changed. So probably what would happen is that Romney would be removed as the nominee but people would be told to vote for him anyway, with the understanding that a vote for Romney was actually a vote for Paul Ryan, who would then be the de facto Republican nominee. Then, if he won, a rather odd thing would have to happen for him to become president. Well a couple of things. First, Mitt Romney would have to formally and legally renounce any claim to the presidency. Nominee or not, it was HIS name on the ballot, he would have a right to claim the presidency if he won no matter what his other circumstances (president from prison!). Then, at 11:00 a.m. on January 20, 2013, Paul Ryan would be sworn in as vice president of the United States. An hour later he would take the oath and become president.

But none of that is going to happen. The GOP is stuck with Romney.

[Haflinger]

Actually, technically the Electoral College can put anyone who meets the criteria into the President's chair. So if it was agreed upon by everyone in the GOP, including all of the electors that Romney has provided, they could, say, name Jon Stafford as President after winning a majority of College votes.

This has never happened but is theoretically completely legal.

[The Dark Empire]

I could never be president cause I'm British

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Actually, technically the Electoral College can put anyone who meets the criteria into the President's chair. So if it was agreed upon by everyone in the GOP, including all of the electors that Romney has provided, they could, say, name Jon Stafford as President after winning a majority of College votes.

This has never happened but is theoretically completely legal.

Haf is quite right about this. The Electoral College is a strange anachronism in our so-called democracy. Technically, when you (assuming "you" are an American citizen) vote for president, you're not really voting for president. You're voting for an elector, who will go to Washington and a cast a vote in the Electoral College. Theoretically electors are pledged to vote for a certain candidate, but there is nothing compelling them to do so. Electors can vote for whomever they choose.

Ironically, the reason this system was put in place was because the founders were afraid of the influence of special interest groups on the democratic process. They wanted to avoid rule by, in James Madison's words, "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

So, yeah, epic fail on that one.

[Haflinger]

The other reason was to prevent runoff elections. In the event of three Presidential candidates each taking a minority of the electoral college seats, in theory two of them could collaborate together to come to some deal, probably involving one of them getting to be VP (the College determines the VP position too) so that you don't have something like the French system of runoff elections in place.

Ironically I think the French system was put in to get away from the problems of the Electoral College but oh well...

I don't know of any case where the Electoral College has been split in this way. As far as I know all US Presidents were elected with a simple majority of College votes.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Yes. But the problem, as you know, is that sometimes someone gets elected president who didn't win the popular vote, and that's ridiculous.

[The Dark Empire]

Something like that kind of happened when Henry Clay swayed the house to elect John Quincy Adams for president over Andrew Jackson. In return Henry Clay became Secretary of state. It was called the corrupt bargain. Also the election of 1870 was decided on a compromise where the Republicans would get Hayes elected over the democratic candidate on the deal that reconstruction would basically end.

So yeah shady deals for the presidency have occurred

[Haflinger]

1870 wasn't a presidential election year... that would only have been Congressional elections and the usual third of Senate.

Yes. But the problem, as you know, is that sometimes someone gets elected president who didn't win the popular vote, and that's ridiculous.

Yeah, that would be the main problem the French runoff system was supposed to correct. It doesn't work all that well anyway, which just brings up the main problem with both systems: you're putting one person in charge of the whole business, it's much better to have groups of people running things.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

"Groups of people" = committees. Committees have never done anything good. I think of the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

TDE is thinking of the election of 1876, when Samuel J. Tilden got a majority of the popular vote, but through some back room skullduggery Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the electoral vote and thus the presidency.

[Redezra]

"Groups of people" = committees. Committees have never done anything good. I think of the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

TDE is thinking of the election of 1876, when Samuel J. Tilden got a majority of the popular vote, but through some back room skullduggery Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the electoral vote and thus the presidency.

We've never had anything this interesting in Australia.


The best we have had was when parliament was dissolved on some *very* shaky grounds, which ended in some cool speeches.


Oh and the removal of Kevin Rudd as PM by the Labor party who were sick of his management style. That's how we got Gillard

[The Dark Empire]

"Groups of people" = committees. Committees have never done anything good. I think of the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

TDE is thinking of the election of 1876, when Samuel J. Tilden got a majority of the popular vote, but through some back room skullduggery Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the electoral vote and thus the presidency.

Yep I got the date wrong

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

We've never had anything this interesting in Australia.

You just don't know your own history well enough.

[Haflinger]

"Groups of people" = committees. Committees have never done anything good. I think of the old adage about a camel being a horse designed by a committee.

Camels are pretty handy in the desert.

Committees are like everything else. Some are good, some are bad. The thing is that in democratic elections one person cannot be representative of a larger group; it's just impossible to find someone who represents a whole country, even a relatively small one like Canada.

Committees are much more representative. Which is a large part of the theory behind responsible government; it's sort of depressing that we've abandoned the idea in practice.