posted 01-05-2004 04:24 PM            

http://theelectoralcollegesucks.com/

The Electoral College System

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

Excerpted from The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, Choosing the President - 1992 (New York: Lyons and Burford, 1992), p. 91-97.
Click here to go to the National League of Women Voters Homepage.
Copyright ©1992 by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.

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

The actual mechanism of electing the president and the vice president of the United States is a rather complicated process. The electoral college is one of the many compromises written into the United States Constitution in 1787. The founding fathers devised the electoral college to elect the president but they did not anticipate the emergence of national political parties or a communications network able to bring presidential candidates before the entire electorate.

Providing that the president be chosen indirectly through the "electoral college" rather than directly
by the voters in November was one of the founders' hedges against "popular passion." In the beginning, the electors had very real powers to work their will. Now, their sole function is to confirm a decision made by the electorate six weeks earlier.

Under the Constitution, each state is authorized to choose electors for president and vice president, the number always being the same as the combined number of U.S. senators and representatives allotted to that state. With 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States, plus three electors for the District of Columbia provided by the Twenty-third Amendment, the total electoral college vote is 538.

Makeup and operation of the electoral college itself are tightly defined by the Constitution, but the method of choosing electors is left to the states. In the beginning many states did not provide for popular election of the presidential electors. Today, however, electors are chosen by direct popular vote in every state. When voters vote for president, they are actually voting for the electors pledged to their presidential candidate. (Electors are named by state party organizations. Serving as an elector is considered an honor, a reward for faithful service.)

With the political parties in control of presidential politics, the function of the electoral college has changed drastically. Rather than having individuals seek to become electors and then vote for whomever they please for president, the parties have turned the process upside down by arranging slates of electors, all pledged to support the candidate nominated by the party.

In the earliest days of the electoral college, quite the opposite was true. Electors cast their votes for individual candidates rather than for party slates, with the majority winner being elected president and the runner-up, vice president. This made for some bizarre situations, as in 1796 when the Federalist John Adams, with 71 votes, became president and the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, with 68, vice president- roughly equivalent in modern times to an election in which Bush and Dukakis would end up as president and vice president. In 1800 Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, each won an identical number of electoral votes, forcing the election into the House of Representatives, which resolved it in Jefferson's favor. It was to avoid any similar occurrence that the Twelfth Amendment was passed in 1804. This amendment required the electors to cast two separate ballots, one for president and the other for vice president. This is the only constitutional change that has been made in the electoral college system, other than to add three electoral votes for the District of Columbia in 1961.

Presidential and vice presidential candidates of a party run as a team. In most of the states, it is the names of the candidates rather than the names of the electors that appear on the ballot; in the other states, both candidates and electors are identified. The victor in each state is determined by counting the votes for each slate of electors; the slate receiving the most votes (the plurality, not necessarily the majority of the votes cast) is declared the winner.

To be elected to the presidency a candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) of the electoral votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner from the top three, with each state delegation in the House casting only one vote, regardless of its size. Only two U.S. elections have been decided this way (1800 and 1824).

The vice president is elected at the same time by the same indirect winner-take-all method that chooses the president, but the electors vote separately for the two offices. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, the Senate picks the winner from the top two, each senator voting as an individual. The Senate has not made the choice since 1836.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Electoral College, Pro and Con

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

The electoral college mechanism has not lacked for critics over the years. The basic objection is that the system clearly has the potential to frustrate the popular will in the selection of a president and a vice president. Because of the aggregation of electoral votes by state, it is possible that a candidate might win the most popular votes but lose in the electoral college voting. This happened in 1824 (when the election was thrown into the House), in 1876 (when there were disputed electors from several states), and in 1888. The winner-take-all system literally means that the candidate team that wins most of the popular votes (the plurality vote winner) in a particular state gets all of the electoral votes in that state, and the loser gets none, even if the loss is by a slim popular-vote margin. Thus a candidate who fails to carry a particular state receives not a single electoral vote in that state for the popular votes received. Since presidential elections are won by electoral-not popular-votes, it is the electoral vote tally that election-night viewers watch for and that tells the tale.

Another problem cited by critics is the possibility of "faithless electors" who defect from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most recently, in 1976, a Republican elector in the state of Washington cast his vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford, the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier, in 1972, a Republican elector in Virginia deserted Nixon to vote for the Libertarian party candidate. And in 1968, Nixon lost another Virginia elector, who bolted to George Wallace.

The main danger of faithless electors is that the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of a majority in the electoral college and could lose the election on a technicality. This prospect becomes more probable when there are third-party or independent candidates who could negotiate with electors before they vote.

Many see the apportioning of the electoral college votes by states as a basic flaw, because it gives each of the smaller states at least three electoral votes, even though on a straight population basis some might be entitled to only one or two.

Critics of the system also argue that the possibility that an election could be thrown into the House of Representatives is undemocratic. In such a case each state has a single vote, which gives the sparsely populated or small states equal weight with more populous states such as California or New York. The two occasions when it occurred (1800 and 1824) were marked by charges of "deals" and "corrupt bargains." In any event, giving each state one vote in the House of Representatives regardless of the number of people represented is not consistent with the widely accepted concept of one-person-one-vote. Also, one vote per state in the House of Representatives may not necessarily result in a choice that replicates the electoral vote winner in that state in November.

Those who argue in favor of retaining the present system state that there is too much uncertainty over whether any other method would be an improvement. They point out that many of the complaints about the electoral college apply just as well to the Senate and, to some extent, to the House. They fear that reform could lead to the dismantling of the federal system.

Another argument made by defenders of the electoral college is that the present method serves American democracy well by fostering a two-party system and thwarting the rise of splinter parties such as those that have plagued many European democracies. The winner-take-all system means that minor parties get few electoral votes and that a president who is the choice of the nation as a whole emerges. In the present system, splinter groups could not easily throw an election into the House. Supporters feel strongly that if the electors fail to agree on a majority president, it is in keeping with the federal system that the House of Representatives, voting as states, makes the selection.

Supporters also argue that the electoral college system democratically reflects population centers by giving urban areas electoral power; that is where the most votes are. Thus together, urban states come close to marshaling the requisite number of electoral votes to elect a president.

A final argument is that for the most part, the electoral college system has worked. No election in this century has been decided in the House of Representatives. Further, the winner's margin of votes is usually enhanced in the electoral vote-a mathematical happening that can make the winner in a divisive and close election seem to have won more popular support than he actually did. This is thought to aid the healing of election scars and help the new president in governing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposals for Change

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

Discontent with the system was stimulated in the 1960s by the Wallace third-party movement and in 1980 by John Anderson's initially strong showing as an independent candidate with nationwide appeal. Also, the Supreme Court's one-person-one-vote ruling on legislative districts underscored the importance of equitable distribution of votes. A number of proposals for altering the way the president and the vice president are elected have been made. Most would require a constitutional amendment, though states can on their own change their state laws governing the way they choose electors.

One set of proposals looks toward keeping the electoral college but eliminating its winner-take-all features. This shift could be brought about by choosing most electors on a congressional district basis, with only two electors per state chosen statewide. A 1969 Maine law provides for this method, and similar legislation has been considered in several other states. Alternatively, the office of elector could be eliminated and the electoral votes of a state simply assigned to candidates on the basis of the popular vote each receives. Constitutional amendments to that effect have been introduced in Congress but none has passed. These changes might eliminate some distortion of the popular vote, but they would not answer the complaint that the people do not elect the president directly.

Former Senator Birch Bayh repeatedly introduced a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of the president and the vice president. Under the Bayh plan, candidates for president and vice president would be required to run together in each state and the District of Columbia, and voters would make their choices directly, without any intervening slate of electors. If the candidate team with the most votes received at least 40 percent of the nationwide popular vote, that pair would be declared elected; if no pair received that amount there would be a runoff election between the two top pairs.

Direct election of the president along the lines of the Bayh plan would effectively bring the one-person, one-vote principle to presidential elections. Its advocates claim that direct election would help the two-party system. Any dangers to the federal system, they argue, would be more than outweighed by the right of all the people of the United States to choose their two top elected officials directly. Opponents of direct election hold that this particular plan for change might necessitate the holding of two elections because of the runoff provision, thus making the presidential election process even more costly and drawn out than it is already. Following the defeat of the proposed amendment by the Senate in 1979, no further significant effort has been made to revive the plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
An "elector" is simply a person who elects someone else. The term college refers to a decision-making group such as the College of Cardinals, which elects the pope.[RETURN TO TEXT]

For comprehensive discussions of the development and operations of the electoral college system--its pros and cons and possible reforms--see League of Women Voters of the United States, Who Should Elect the President?; Joseph Gorman, Elections: Electoral College Reform; and Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Brown, The Politics of the Electoral College. [RETURN TO TEXT]

In 1876, the House decided which of two disputed sets of electoral votes to accept from certain southern states. [RETURN TO TEXT]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate: 2000 Election numbers.
ARIZONA - 8 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 13 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 22 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 12 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 33 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 23 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 32 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes
__________________________

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Subcommittee Hearing on "Proposals for Electoral College Reform: H.J. Res. 28 and H.J. Res. 43"

September 4, 1997
2237 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 a.m.

Testimony of Becky Cain
President, League of Women Voters

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Becky Cain, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States.

I am pleased to be here today to express the League's support for a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college and establish the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States by popular vote of the American people.

The League of Women Voters of the United States is a non-partisan citizen organization with 150,000 members and supporters in all fifty states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. For over 75 years, Leagues across the country have worked to educate the electorate, register voters and make government at all levels more accessible and responsive to the average citizen.

Since 1970, the League has supported an amendment to the Constitution that would abolish the electoral college and establish a direct, popular vote for the President and Vice President of the United States. The League arrived at this position through its time-honored study and consensus process. Leagues in over 1,000 communities across the country participated in the study and came to the same conclusion: our method of electing a President must be changed to ensure a more representative government.

Political developments since the 1970s have only underscored the need for the elimination of the electoral college system. The downward trend in voter participation, coupled with increased cynicism and skepticism amongst the public about the ability of elected leaders to provide meaningful representation are the warning signs of a potential electoral fiasco.

Picture if you will a future national election in which a presidential candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, but is denied the 270 votes necessary for election by the electoral college. This has already happened once in our nation's history, when, in 1888, Grover Cleveland out-polled Benjamin Harrison in the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote by 233 to 168. It caused a public furor then, when political office was often gained through back-room deals and closed-door maneuvering. Imagine the public outcry today, after a long primary campaign and a grueling race for the Presidency. Imagine the public's rage at being denied their candidate of choice.

Now go one step further. Consider a close three-way race for President in which no candidate earns the necessary electoral college votes to win. This has happened twice before in our nation's history, in 1801 and 1825, when the House of Representatives chose Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, respectively. While the League believes both of these men were great presidents, we are troubled about the potential for a future presidential candidate with the highest number of popular votes to lose the election in a House of Representatives dominated by one or another political party.

In the twentieth century, we have only narrowly avoided a series of constitutional crises in which the electoral college could have over-ruled the popular vote.

In the 1916 presidential election, a shift of only 2,000 votes in California would have given Charles Evans Hughes the necessary electoral votes to defeat Woodrow Wilson, despite Wilson's half-million vote nationwide plurality.

In 1948, a shift of only 30,000 votes in three states would have delivered the White House to Governor Dewey, in spite of the fact that he trailed President Truman by some 2.1 million popular votes.

In 1960, a shift of only 13,000 votes in five states (5,000 in Illinois, 5,000 in Missouri, 1,200 in New Mexico, 1,300 in Nevada and 200 in Hawaii) would have made Richard Nixon president.

In 1968, a shift of 42,000 votes in three states (Alaska, Missouri and New Jersey) would have denied Nixon an electoral college victory and thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

In 1976, a shift of only 9,300 votes (5,600 from Ohio and 3,700 from Hawaii) would have elected Gerald Ford, even though he trailed Jimmy Carter in the popular vote by 1.6 million ballots.

Apart from the public outcry that would be caused by a circumvention of the popular will, there are a number of other serious flaws in the electoral college system.

The electoral college system is fundamentally unfair to voters. In a nation where voting rights are grounded in the one person, one vote principle, the electoral college is a hopeless anachronism.

The current system is unfair for two reasons.

First, a citizen's individual vote has more weight if he or she lives in a state with a small population than if that citizen lives in a state with a large population.

For example, each electoral vote in Alaska is equivalent to approximately 112,000 people. Each electoral vote in New York is equivalent to approximately 404,000 eligible people (based on 1990 census data). And that's if everyone votes!

The system is also unfair because a citizen's individual vote has more weight if the percentage of voter participation in the state is low. For example, if only half of all people in Alaska vote, then each electoral vote is equivalent to roughly 56,000 people.

Moreover, the electoral vote does not reflect the volume of voter participation within a state. If only a few voters go to the polls, all the electoral votes of the state are still cast.

Finally, the electoral college system is flawed because the constitution does not bind presidential electors to vote for the candidates to whom they have been pledged. For example, in 1948, 1960 and 1976, individual electors pledged to the top two vote getters cast their votes for third place finishers and also-rans. Defecting electors in a close race could cause a crisis of confidence in our electoral system.

For all these reasons, the League believes that the presidential election method should incorporate the one-person, one-vote principle. The President should be directly elected by the people he or she will represent, just as the other federally elected officials are in this country. Direct election is the most representative system. It is the only system that guarantees the President will have received the most popular votes. It also encourages voter participation by giving voters a direct and equal role in the election of the President.

Of course, a direct popular vote does not preclude the possibility of a close three-way race in which no candidate receives a majority, or even a plurality, of the votes. The League believes that if no candidate receives more than 40 percent of the popular vote, then a national run-off election should be held.

Until there is a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college, the League supports the early establishment of clear rules and procedures for the House and Senate to handle their responsibilities in electing the President and Vice President if there is no majority vote in the electoral college.

Procedures should be established to avoid the last-minute partisan wrangling that would inevitably take place. In addition, we believe any congressional vote for President must take place in full public view, with individual representative's votes entered into the Congressional Record.

When the constitution was first written, our nation was a vastly different kind of democracy than it is today. Only white, male property owners could vote. The 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote. The 17th Amendment provided for direct popular election of the Senate. The 19th Amendment gave women the vote. The 26th Amendment established the right of citizens 18 years of age and older to vote.

The time has come to take the next step to ensure a broad-based, representative democracy. Fairness argues for it. Retaining the fragile faith of American voters in our representative system demands it. We urge the House and the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college system and establishing the direct popular election of our President and Vice President.

Thank you.

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

Well, the electoral college reform was obviously not successful. We still have the albatross hanging from our necks!

I'm still confused about the electoral college and the 2000 election. Anyone care to enlighten me and review that? Katherine Harris, right? shatoga?

More info: http://www.electionreform.org/ERMain/priorities/ec/default.htm

quote:

---

Election 2000 made it overwhelmingly clear that the process of electing the American President and Vice President is both outdated and ineffective. The candidate who received the highest number of votes was not elected president due to the votes of the Electoral College. While the Electoral College was originally created as a buffer between the people and the presidency, our system has outgrown the utility of the Electoral College. It is finally time for us to find a suitable solution to this problem.

---

I'll read on the above link and do some reviewing!

We do need some election reform in terms of parties, campaign funding, and electoral college reform! Why hasn't anything been done?

bc

posted 01-08-2004 04:51 AM            

Do I need to be any more clear?

Total NWO dominance=Bush vs/ anyone else and partial NWO dominance

The choice is clear!

Like Roosevelet and Churchill joining with Stalin against Hitler.

We must first fight together against the greater evil.

1st: stop the advance of the rightwing police state... (the common enemy)

then work together to restore the USConstitution.

posted 01-08-2004 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Anyone other than Bush!

Do I need to be any more clear?

Total NWO dominance=Bush vs/ anyone else and partial NWO dominance

The choice is clear!

Like Roosevelet and Churchill joining with Stalin against Hitler.

We must first fight together against the greater evil.

1st: stop the advance of the rightwing police state... (the common enemy)

then work together to restore the USConstitution.

---

The only one I might not vote for is GOP Liverman. He has voted lockstep in sycophantic embrace with BushLaden Productions.

If he runs against Bush, a mass exodus will eventually leave this country, and we can be then be sure there is a diabolical triumvirate of Zionists, Far Right Fanatical Fundamentalists, and Medical/Oil/Industrial/Military Industrialists.

Anybody else other than Bush and Liverman in 2004!

posted 01-08-2004 07:16 PM            

We LOSE any way we vote.

This much is certain.

Untill we fix the system.

Voting in a Democrat will NOT stop the New World Order.

posted 01-09-2004 05:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
Anyone other than Bush!

Do I need to be any more clear?

Total NWO dominance=Bush vs/ anyone else and partial NWO dominance

The choice is clear!

Like Roosevelet and Churchill joining with Stalin against Hitler.

We must first fight together against the greater evil.

1st: stop the advance of the rightwing police state... (the common enemy)

then work together to restore the USConstitution.

---

Totally, unequivocably agree!

There is still hope: unless the election never happens for some conconcted power-grabbing reason!

bc

posted 01-09-2004 10:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by zoobie555:
"A Northeast (Maine) governor with gay marriage and raising taxes already tagged onto him."

Not that it has much bearing on this conversation, but Dean is the Governor of Vermont, not Maine...

---

thank you zoobie,
for the correction.

Governor of the one state that fully supports the 2nd amendment.
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/vermont

>Vermont is unique in that permits are not required for carry concealed or unconcealed for resident and non-resident alike. Local ordinances vary, though. VT has no statutes concerning concealed carry, nor is there a specific statute that allows it. In the absence of a statute that prohibits it, then it is taken that there is no law against it.<
>It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man.<

So, a governor who has supported freedom for law abiding citizens already.

Clark/Dean Dean/Clark (anyone but Bush)

either way it means a restoration of Constitutional government
and and a temporary limit to the advance of the NWO=rightwing police state!

posted 01-10-2004 12:25 PM            

I would be happy to see a Kucinnich/Dean ticket, but might have to settle for a Dean/Kucinnich ticket. IMO civil liberties and protecting the Bill of Rights is at the very TOP of my list of concerns.Has Dean shown a commitment to an open and honest Constitutional government. His alleged "sealing" of states records might suggest otherwise.

I trust Kucinnich's integrity from what I have seen and heard, at least in comparison with the others. Isn't Clark a "Rhode's Scholar" and wasn't Clinton too? I am not sure if Clark accepts Cecil Rhodes vision for America or Clinton's "vision" but if he does we might find only further destruction of what precious little is left of the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties. Clinton in my mind made it clear his feelings on a Constitutional America, and they were'nt very positive. As Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz and crew have absolutely ZERO repsect for a Constitutional America I also say with little reservation,

ANYONE BUT BUSH IN 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I support The Bill Rights and will vote accordingly.

posted 01-10-2004 09:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
I would be happy to see a Kucinnich/Dean ticket, but might have to settle for a Dean/Kucinnich ticket.

---

posted 01-10-2004 10:45 PM            

I love Kucinich, but we have to play it smart and get the votes!

If you listen to Clark you'll hear some great things!

Remember, after a Pres and VP get elected, they can appoint people to high offices and cabinet positions. I'm sure Kucinich would be considered for any great office!

bc

posted 01-10-2004 10:49 PM            

Kucinich as head of the EPA would be my choice!

Show Me Truth, If Lieberman ever was running against Bush in 2004, we all may as well pack our bags.

posted 01-10-2004 11:27 PM            

D.K.'d be great at any high office, even Secretary of State!

Lieberman? Hasn't a chance!

Peace

posted 01-11-2004 12:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
Clinton in my mind made it clear his feelings on a Constitutional America, and they were'nt very positive.

SmT

---

I corresponded with Clinton , from my first 'scathing letter of criticism' in 1993 until he left office.

The public perception of Clinton is far different from the facts IMHO.
After WACO, he repeatedly tried to reign in the out of control government.

Read his Executive Orders (on Federalism) to find what he really tried to do. http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/clinton_subjects.html
Federalism: EO 13083; EO 13095; EO 13132

Repeated orders to 'all agencies of the Executive Branch' "To obey the Constitution in all action and in all regulation.."

And they thumbed their noses at Clinton and did as they wished.

"There is a government inside the government and I am not in charge." -President Clinton 1996

Bush is in charge!
Those same rightwingers who thumbed their noses at Carter and Clinton gladly carry out the unconstitutional orders of Bush's administration.
I believe they will also thumb their noses at Kucinich or Dean but might show some respect for General Clark.
(Kerry is skull and bones NWO to the hilt)

Goldwater saw clearly that his party had been taken over by fanatics who sought "to impose their will on others."

I'll literally vote for "anyone without a one-party-rule (R) next to their name".
For any office in any election.

It cannot get any worse than the rightwing police state this current

one-party-(R)ule clique
has imposed on us.

posted 01-11-2004 09:34 AM            

I'll concur, Lieberman VS. Bush at the polls would be a gut wrenching experience. NO Lieberman. I remember him especially from the Waco hearings where I recall he ran interference ( as did Schumer and others) for the crimes commited against the Branch Davidians. I state this as my opinion only(having spent much time in search of the Waco truth) and for those that want to see the hearing footage (and footage from the 51 day standoff) I highly recommend the excellent documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". (Someone else mentioned this here too). Once one sees the movie they won't easily forget it. Seeing Fed lying on this scale is truly a breathtaking experience. Also great footage and interviews of Koresh and Family and a great insight into the whole sordid tragedy.
--------------------------------------------
Shatoga:"I request your source for that".

Hi, Shatoga, not really a "source" as such more a perception of the very things like Waco that I mentioned.Though I cannot "Prove" that Clinton signed off on the Delta Force ending at Waco, it is hard to imagine he did not. I would have to go dig out all of the information of Legislation from years ago that Clinton passed regarding FEMA and the strengthening of the FED while diluting
poweres of the States, but I suppose anyone could do that with a Google search if they wanted to go take the time. Clinton's escalation of the 'drug war' while being (allegedly) involved with same seems Un-American to me. Ambrose Evans Pritchard's book "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" I thought did a rather good job of bringing to light the Mena drug connection and the Dixie Mafia in Arkansas. Quite a trail of crimes and bodies.

Clinton, too, had some great things to say himself over the years that I interpreted as his disregard for The Bill of Rights and Constitution. I suppose I could go back and compile a list, but as others could find this out again with a little google search I won't bother. I think Mech in one of his posts here had some of the infamous quotes about how the Constitution was written by radicals and was outdated or something to that affect, but anyway like I said my perception of Clinton is one based over the years.

Do you however, see him in any way as a champion for the rights of The People, preserving precious Civil Liberties and wanting a more Constitutionally based government. I do recall him allowing an opening of acess to Fed records if I recall right, which this current administration has tried to reverse, but other than that how did he promote the Constitution, the sovereignty of States and Civil Liberties?
Not that I guess it matters much now with the Bush Cabal at the helm. I am much more concerned with the war-mongering lust for power and resources the current administration shows and as Clinton is out and Bush is in I hope to remain focused on that.

SmT

posted 01-11-2004 05:35 PM            

I also got a Clinton authographed DNC membership gratis as response to my gripe about 'fat cats in smoke filled rooms'.

I now have access to all Democrats' smoke filled rooms and can personally confirn there is no NWO plot to destroy America active in that party.
Everywhere I go, I need only show my DNC card with it's special logo to become an insider to closed door meetings.

There is no conspiracy in that party.

IMHO
in my well informed opinion,
the NWO has total control of the leadership of the rightwing in america and the NWO media helps them denigrate all Americans' opposition to the NWO.

IMHO it is Republicans who need to take back their party from the neo-cons who have tried to destroy everything Republicans once stood for.

"Rightwing and wrong" is no longer acceptable

posted 01-11-2004 07:07 PM            

if Kucinnich was on the ballot that it might pull in alot of the Green vote and maybe even some Libertarians that absolutely will not vote for Bush? Kucinnich seems to have a very dedicated enthusiastic support, IMO not necessarily because we all agree with everything he might do, but because of his Populist appeal. And I wonder how many of the younger voters might make an extra effort to get out the vote, if Kucinnich were on the ticket even in the VP slot.

Also I have my reservations about what kind of president a General might make and especially god forbid if there was ever a tragedy of such huge proportions that Martial Law was declared.

posted 01-11-2004 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
BC,do you think though, that

if Kucinnich was on the ballot that it might pull in alot of the Green vote and maybe even some Libertarians that absolutely will not vote for Bush? Kucinnich seems to have a very dedicated enthusiastic support, IMO not necessarily because we all agree with everything he might do, but because of his Populist appeal. And I wonder how many of the younger voters might make an extra effort to get out the vote, if Kucinnich were on the ticket even in the VP slot.

Also I have my reservations about what kind of president a General might make and especially god forbid if there was ever a tragedy of such huge proportions that Martial Law was declared.

SmT

---

Those who support and admire Kucinich would get onboard and support the party's nominating convention choice! And whoever that presidential nominee turns out to be, he or she then chooses who will run as VP. Clark's numbers are still ahead of Kucinich's. I know Kucinich people and they are peace activists, as I am, and conservationists, and many are Green Party people. That faction of the Green Party (those who have supported Kucinich) will not likely turn against the Dem. duo chosen, and vote for Nader! Knowing these people, I would venture to say that Kucinich himself will suggest they unify in order to change the regime. He might even go so far as to give speeches encouraging the whole Green Party to unify and vote Dem in order further all causes and ultimately -- kick the b******* out! I wouldn't doubt that many Dems will approach Nader himself (if he runs) to support the Dems in their effort. Splitting the liberal ticket again, would not be wise! Nader claims it didn't make a difference in the last election -- but many would debate that.

Nader hasn't announced yet, but I did see him recently and he firmly pronounced his dedication to running (if he does) in order to win. His rationale was that the Dems aren't touching 9/11,Patriot Act or the corporations. But I daresay, by the time the conventions arrive, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Iraq, corporate theft of medicare, savings and pensions, (the attack on the middleclass and poor workers and small business owners) and 9/11 will be fully hashed out and positions stated! You can throw in the environment,too! Nader makes huge assumptions and is quite stubborn!

About Nader by Michael Janofsky:

quote:

---

New York Times: EXCERPT: He is sounding like a presidential candidate again, charging the Bush administration with "messianic militarism and subservient corporatism," and the Democrats with soft-pedaling liberal policies that were once mainstays of their party. Three years after the election in which Democrats say he cost Al Gore the White House, Ralph Nader is considering another campaign, and says he will decide shortly. At this point, Mr. Nader said in an interview this week, a run depends only on his ability to collect enough money and volunteers to mount a credible effort. Otherwise, he said, he has a zillion reasons to go ahead — including, he insists, that doing so would be good for the Democrats.

---

One must listen to the candidates and listening to Wesley Clark will open your mind a bit, I swear to you. His expertise in knowing how the military works will be a great asset. He's firmly against a draft of any kind, also. Running because he knows the problems and wants to change them for the better, he offers great potential. Eisenhower was ex-military and a fine president. Just because a president has experience in the military does not make him "gung ho" for martial law or curtailing citizens' rights!

And the main point for his VP position is his popularity. Since I have listened, bought his book, and find him a credible candidate for VP, I must stand up for his morality and credentials for leadership.

Edwards came out on top with many in Iowa, BTW, but I think nation wide, Clark will be second only to Dean in popularity.

Latest http://www.Truthout.com poll:

quote:

---

Who is your preference for democratic presidential nominee? (in alphabetical order)
Dean 41.3%
Kucinich 34.2%
Clark 15.8%
Kerry 4.1%
Edwards 3.6%
Sharpton 1.0%
Gephardt 0.0%
Braun 0.0%
Lieberman 0.0%

Total votes: 196

---

Remember, truthout is a liberal website.

Gallup Poll:

quote:

---

Clark Comes on Strong in New Poll
Dean receives 24%, Clark 20% of national Democrats' support

by Lydia Saad
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean no longer holding a commanding lead among Democrats nationally in the race for his party's presidential nomination, as Democrats who are registered to vote appear to be taking a second look at retired Gen. Wesley Clark. After leading Clark by 15 and 21 points in two December polls that asked Democrats whom they supported for their party's nomination, Dean's advantage has shrunk to just 4 points in the Jan. 2-5 national survey (24% vs. 20%) -- within the poll's margin of error.

This tightening of the race among Democrats nationally mostly results from increased support for Clark, rather than a decline in support for Dean. Clark gained eight points over the last two weeks, while Dean lost three points, and the number of undecided Democrats declined by three points.

---

So the numbers crunch favorably for Clark and Dean overall! As far as independents voters, we'll have to check the polls later for that info.

Clark and Dean are the two most formidable opponents for the contest to the White House at this point!

Gallup general info:

Government & Public Affairs
1/6/2004

U.S. States Remain Equally Divided on Partisanship

As the nation enters the 2004 election year, Gallup data show the country is evenly divided in its partisan affiliation -- 45.5% of Americans identify as Republicans or say they lean toward the Republican Party, and 45.2% identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party. The remaining 9% identify themselves as independents and express no proclivity to either of the major parties.

_____________________

Give Clark a chance to be heard!

bc

posted 01-11-2004 09:36 PM            

for the info. Out of curiosity I may, as you suggest, check out info on Clark. I really don't know alot about him, or Dean,though I have heard them both debate.

I do wonder why in the Gallup poll however Kucinnich isn't even in it. And Lieberman is? Seems a bit odd. Especially when one veiws the former poll where DK had over 30 percent and Lieberman had ZERO. Even excepting for a "liberal" bias of the truthout poll, seems hard to me to account for the 180.

Wonder if you have to pay to be in the Gallup poll.

posted 01-12-2004 12:42 AM            

Kucinich: http://emfx13.proboards17.com/index.cgi?board=defeat&action=display&num=1069806532

posted 01-13-2004 10:09 PM            

I receive political email alerts from an activist site, The Petition Site - http://www.thepetitionsite.com/

They give some basic information on the presidential candidates and their proposed policies. You can also register your name for the candidate of your choice and receive updates. I know total of registered signatures is not high, but check out the standings. I found the figures QUITE interesting!

Braun.....353
Clark.....831
Dean.....1,678
Edwards.....154
Gephardt.....105
Kerry.....274
Kucinich.....2,042
Lieberman.....179
Sharpton.....70

posted 01-14-2004 04:39 PM            

Up to this point in time, seems like the people want Kucinich! Funny thing is, this is the one candidate the media ignores! Imagine what his standing would be if he got the deserved publicity like the others?

Who is your preference for Democratic presidential nominee?

Kucinich..... 44.1%
Dean..... 32.6%
Clark..... 14.7%
Kerry..... 3.7%
Edwards..... 2.3%
Sharpton..... 0.9%
Gephardt..... 0.7%
Braun..... 0.6%
Lieberman..... 0.3%