I am floored to learn that this is true. While I knew we voted for electors who then elect the president, I was not aware that U.S. citizens are not given the right to vote for president. According to article II of the constitutions, it is up to the state legislatures to decide how they will select electors. Florida did not have a vote of the populace in 1868-the legislature voted.

Our right to vote is only extended to local, state, and federal elections involving the senate and house. Those two bodies are the voice of the people.

Justice Scalia reiterated this today in the hearing. Pretty amazing, huh?

-- SydBarrett (dark@side.moon), December 02, 2000

Answers

The Constitution originally provided that each state legislature would select their two US Senators, too, though that was later changed by amendment.

If you understand what the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish, the idea that the President would be put in office by electors, rather than by a nationwide popular vote, isn't really that foreign.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 02, 2000.

PS - a fine point, though. If the Florida Legislature were to create some new law out of whole cloth to permit itself to select electors, I have no doubt that THIS would conflict with the idea that you can't change election law for the current election, once it has occurred.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 02, 2000.

Sorta puts us in our place, doesn't it?

I don't like it one bit.

I have voted in Pennsylvania when the _Electors_ were on the ballot but not recently. Now it is just the block heading 'Electors for Candidates for President of the United States' with the candidates listed below.

And so, much as I don't like it, the Florida Legislature is right.

This 'Electoral College' bit is BAD.

Whatever happened to 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'? I know that it's not in the Constitution but I feel like I have been conned.

-- Pam (Pam@j.o.e), December 02, 2000.

Well I don't like it, so I'm going to elect new founding fathers.

-- Hillary C (out@of.control), December 02, 2000.

We are getting a great civics lesson aren't we? We are all a lot smarter for this and hopefully our voting mechinisms will be standardized throughout the country. Watch the hearing/trial in Leon county today. This is the biggy....if the judge does not dismiss it all in answer to Bush's call for dismissal. A good possibility.

-- Taz (Tassie@RuralFlorida.com), December 02, 2000.

The founders set up the electoral college because they didn't want the president elected by direct popular vote. They were afraid the presidency would become a popularity contest.

(Turns out they were right, but that's another matter.[g])

The electoral college also gives smaller states like mine a more equal voice. One of my contentions about this election is that Florida did NOT decide it. Tennessee did. The Carolinas and the Dakotas did.

If Gore had won just ONE of these states, none of the current mess in Florida would even matter (and probably wouldn't have happened).

There's a growing divide in this country between rural-flavor, more conservative states and urban, more liberal ones. If you take away the electoral college, people like us in the "rural" areas will lose the most.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 02, 2000.

Suppose the president was elected by the popular vote - could you imagine the mess we would be in right now.

Fortunately, this is all contained in one state (Florida). If the president were elected by the PV, these lawsuits would be pressed throughout the ENTIRE COUNTRY! Quite possibly every state.

I say keep the electoral college.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), December 02, 2000.

Only a loser would misinterpret the constitution to mean that citizens are subject to a direct tax on their property poole. You're not the authority on this, as you would like everyone to believe. You're a lackey, poole. The truth is starting to come out like never before. And losers like you are going to be scorned for the shills that you are.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 02, 2000.

KoFE---

What did I miss here?. Where did Poole mention taxes?

Dr Pibb--

Methinks you are right. Imagine the mess there would be if such a close election was decided only by the national popular vote? And don't anyone tell me that Gore won the popular vote. It's too close to say that---the lawyers would have a ball digging up vote irregularities all over the country in an election this close.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be improved voting procedures. I am saying that to summarily dump the EC would not be the answer.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), December 02, 2000.

KoFE,

Aw, you're just annoyed because I've threatened to slaughter anything you post in my forum. :)

(This ESPECIALLY applies to anything from incompetent morons like Joe Bannister.)

Pam,

The Founding Fathers wanted to guard against elections becoming popularity contests. The House of Representatives is most closely tied to the local population count, so that's where the "direct" democracy comes in. Senators and the President were to be selected on ABILITY after careful consideration, not mere popularity.

The current system tends to draw candidates who don't exite a majority of the populace. A minority of Americans choose the most powerful man in the free world primarily on the basis of whom they DISLIKE the LEAST -- which is hardly a commendable method.

In general:

There's one point that everyone is missing in this discussion of the Supreme Court, by the way. We are indeed getting a free civics lesson, and the only reason why there is disagreement and confusion is because we HAVE moved so far from what the founders intended. They *clearly* wanted the state legislatures, and at the national level, the Congress, to have the final say-so over the selection of President and Vice-President.

Like most of you here, I've been reading the constitution carefully, I've been looking at what little precedent has been set in the courts, and so on; and I'm of the opinion that the Supreme Court is going to rule against Gore. It will be a split decision, *BECAUSE* of the tension between "strict constructionists" and the more liberal view.

But there is no doubt whatsoever what the founders intended. The state legislatures were to determine how the electors were to be chosen, and in the event of a failure of any candidate to get a majority, it was to go into the House of Representatives.

If that were to happen, there would doubtless be cries of "partisanship," because either the Florida legislature *OR* the US House would certainly pick Bush. But italics this is one reason why your vote for congressman is so important! I'll admit that the odds in any given presidential election are remote that it WOULD go to the legislative, but each and every one of us should *THINK* about that (among other things) before voting for our congresscritters.

If your district elected a Republican, then the system is merely working AS INTENDED if that representative then helps put a Republican in the White House. There is no illegality, shadiness, wrong-doing or even questionable behavior in that. That's how it works.

Incidentally, the biggest disconnect I've seen is the Democratic effort to get some Republican electors to abstain in the College. They're shooting themselves in the foot! From my reading of the law, if these electors DO abstain, neither candidate can get a *majority* of the electors. In that event, it goes to the House -- and Bush will win, anyway.

Sometimes I think Gore's people are too clever by half. They keep shooting themselves in the toes. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 02, 2000.

About as annoyed as seeing roaches, but at the same time remembering that they scatter when the light is turned on.

And to Mr Pibb: shills like poole benefit by the publics short memory, so it's good to be reminded again. He just got himself a radio station, so he's up to his ass in Fed. regs. and must kow tow to the local commisars.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 02, 2000.

KoFE you old attention whore! What's the matter, can't get anyone to spell your name correctly over at slEaZy bored?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 02, 2000.

I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine. Crimes against children, born, and unborn; know anything about that?

Do any of, what is left of the babies, ever cry when they're yanked out? Or is that all taken care of before hand?

Do the ones that have had their brains vacuumed cry anyway? Seems like you would be the one to ask... Thanks in advance...

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), December 03, 2000.

It will be a split decision, *BECAUSE* of the tension between "strict constructionists" and the more liberal view.

Stephen,

I'm glad that you put quotation marks around the words "strict constructionists". I recently posted this thread about the Supreme Court's decision regarding anti-drug roadblocks, which they found un-constitutional. The dissenters were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. These three so-called "strict constructionists" in this case seemed to want to "de-construct" the Fourth Amendment.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

KoFE, your posts, like your brain, are full of sound and fury, signifying that you are utterly, completely lost without attention, even negative attention.

Now why don't you take your prozac and shuffle back to your safe, secure, censorific rubber room?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), December 03, 2000.

Unk:

I too found that very disturbing. Scalia is supposed to be the conservative theorist on the court, and on the whole he does this well. But what the Constitution says becomes either irrelevant or Orwellian for Scalia when it comes to hot-button issues like drugs, abortion, school prayer, etc. In these cases, ANY search and seizure is "reasonable", and not establishing a state religion becomes "except when we impose the key teachings of MY church, which aren't 'religion', they are RIGHT!"

Like any judge, they decide which outcome of a case appeals to them, and THEN they search the law for some plausible justification. It's sad when their preferences are so overriding that justifying them must perforce make a mockery of all they stand for, to the point that "strict constructionists" must argue that the plain words of the law mean the opposite of what they say.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 03, 2000.

Good question, Kofe.

What say you Tarzan?

-- x (x@x.x), December 03, 2000.

Kofe/X seems to really want an argument about abortion.

-- X = Kofe (x@x=kofe.x), December 03, 2000.

Unk, [and, I think, Flint]:

Did either of you question the Supreme Court's decision on the Boy Scouts? Just curious.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

Anita,

As a privately funded organization I think that the scouts should be free to choose who they do, or do not, associate with. If they do not want openly gay men as scout leaders I feel that is their right. The position of the scouts was that they did not want openly gay men as leaders, they were not conducting a witch hunt looking to "out" gay leaders and fire them. People should not be forced to associate with people with whom they would rather not.

Keep in mind that this opinion comes from a guy who also supports the right for gays to marry, if they choose to. I also think they should be allowed to adopt children, children who might otherwise languish in foster care and be shuffled from home to home, never knowing a real family, even if that family is not the typical "atomic family" ideal.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

Uncle,

That's the problem with labels; they frequently break down. Jesse Jackson is probably a good example of a liberal, but guess what? He's personally opposed to abortion (or at least, he has said so many times in the past).

I have been quite concerned about the disassembly of both the 2nd *and* 4th amendments in the past decade or so, and obviously, "strict constructionism" isn't enough to guarantee that these things won't be tampered with. :)

Anita,

See what Deedah said about the Boy Scouts; I essentially agree with him. The Supreme Court realized that they'd be opening a HUGE can of worms if they had ruled otherwise. A private organization must be permitted to have freedom of conscience and speech.

Otherwise, we DO slip down a greased slope into Political Correctness Hell.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), December 04, 2000.