Guest ShamRock Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 I got a couple of questions on the Presidency. 1. What helps prevent executive tyranny? 2. Does a candiate win most of,all, or a percentage of the electoral votes of any state in which he gains a majority of the popular vote? 3. What are delegates at national conventions selected by? Thanks for any help.
Guest AM The Kid Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Shouldnt this be in Current Events?
Guest Choken One Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Yeah this is totally CE Material...
Guest Eagan469 Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 I got a couple of questions on the Presidency. 1. What helps prevent executive tyranny? 2. Does a candiate win most of,all, or a percentage of the electoral votes of any state in which he gains a majority of the popular vote? 3. What are delegates at national conventions selected by? Thanks for any help. 1. The Constitution 2. When the popular vote is won in a state, an "elector" (or electors depending on how many electoral votes the state has) for the winning candidate's party votes in the electoral college who should be president. They do NOT have to rely on the result of the popular vote, only their own opinion, even though the electors have only voted against the popular vote like twice in history. 3. Delegates at national conventions are appointed so after reaching the minimum requirements to be a formidable candidate (petitions filed, steady campaign, etc.)
Guest Kingpk Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 I got a couple of questions on the Presidency. 1. What helps prevent executive tyranny? 2. Does a candiate win most of,all, or a percentage of the electoral votes of any state in which he gains a majority of the popular vote? 3. What are delegates at national conventions selected by? Thanks for any help. 1. The Constitution More specifically, the "Checks and balances" system between the three branches of government. * Congress (The Legislative branch) passes bills. The President (the Executive branch) signs bills into law, but he can also veto them. In the event of a veto, the bill is sent back to Congress and they can override that veto with a majority vote. * If a law is believed to be un-Constitutional, a complaint can be filed with the Supreme Court (the Judicial branch), which is (ideally) set up to have no political affiliation whatsoever. They hear arguements for and against the issue and take into account past precedents in law to make their decisions. They are pretty much the last word in law, once they make a decision, it usually sticks. They can overturn their own decisions, though, but I think that's pretty rare.
Guest DrTom Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 1. What helps prevent executive tyranny? The Constitution, which has set up a system of checks and balances within the government, to prevent any of the three branches from wielding too much power. That system has already been laid out, so I won't repeat it. 2. Does a candiate win most of,all, or a percentage of the electoral votes of any state in which he gains a majority of the popular vote? Generally, if a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, he receives all of that states electoral votes, as well. I'm pretty sure most states require this, to ensure that the will of the people is protected, but there are a few that allow their electors to vote whichever way they choose. Very rarely has it happened that an electoral vote has differed from the popular vote, though. 3. What are delegates at national conventions selected by? Party loyalty, basically. Usually, they're people who work on campaigns within the state, as well as state legislators from the party. This is being moved to CE.
Guest cartman Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Here's the link. This thread made me wonder about the whole Electoral College thing so I looked this up. Interesting read which I TOTALLY agree with. Points out why we should get rid of the EC because there is no real use for it now. Also points out that 2000 was one of those elections that was decided by the EC and NOT the popular vote.
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 "Generally, if a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, he receives all of that states electoral votes, as well. I'm pretty sure most states require this, to ensure that the will of the people is protected, but there are a few that allow their electors to vote whichever way they choose. Very rarely has it happened that an electoral vote has differed from the popular vote, though." I'm pretty sure the states that split their electoral votes are New H. and Maine...
Guest Kingpk Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Here's the link. This thread made me wonder about the whole Electoral College thing so I looked this up. Interesting read which I TOTALLY agree with. Points out why we should get rid of the EC because there is no real use for it now. Also points out that 2000 was one of those elections that was decided by the EC and NOT the popular vote. Yeah, but that's only happened four times in 200+ years of implementation. Why should we have to overhaul the entire electoral process for something that, statistically, is very rare?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Because it's still a problem, regardless of how often it happens.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Here's the link. This thread made me wonder about the whole Electoral College thing so I looked this up. Interesting read which I TOTALLY agree with. Points out why we should get rid of the EC because there is no real use for it now. Also points out that 2000 was one of those elections that was decided by the EC and NOT the popular vote. Yeah, but that's only happened four times in 200+ years of implementation. Why should we have to overhaul the entire electoral process for something that, statistically, is very rare? Well, people tend to ignore the POSITIVES that the Electoral College brings. As I have mentioned more than once here, the College makes fraudulent elections LESS likely. Again, can you imagine how much power somebody like Daley would have had in the 60's if he could have thrown the ENTIRE election for the Democratic candidate via his machine, rather than simply giving Illinois' electoral votes to the Dem? It makes "rigging" an election MUCH more difficult. The EC DOES serve a legitimate role. People can say that Bush didn't win the popular vote. True, but he won FAR more states. Why should the wishes of people in Montana be made irrelevant because large cities tend to have powerful Democratic "machines" that can insure that Republicans have a brutal time winning? -=Mike
Guest TheMikeSC Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 "Generally, if a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, he receives all of that states electoral votes, as well. I'm pretty sure most states require this, to ensure that the will of the people is protected, but there are a few that allow their electors to vote whichever way they choose. Very rarely has it happened that an electoral vote has differed from the popular vote, though." I'm pretty sure the states that split their electoral votes are New H. and Maine... I thought Nebraska did it as well --- but I could definitely be REAL wrong on that. -=Mike
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 DC's electoral votes in 2000 were withheld in protest to their lack of statehood, too. Random factioid.
Guest cartman Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Democratic "Machines"? What is that supposed to mean?
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 It's something that doesn't even exist anymore, but it's a rather nice scapegoat for why democrats tend to rule the inner cities with votes. Back in the early 1900's and up to the 1960's in some locations, there were large political organizations run by a specific party in nearly every city. They tended to control the votes in their city due to the minority and immigrant populations, as they helped them get jobs and looked after them (patronage) pretty well for votes. However, they were vastly broken up by reform in the electoral process and no longer exist.
Guest cartman Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Maybe the Dems rule the inner cities most is because that's where people with an education and a job usually live.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 Maybe the Dems rule the inner cities most is because that's where people with an education and a job usually live. Come again. Guess you forgot about all the poverty in the inner city.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 13, 2003 Report Posted April 13, 2003 True enough, Vern, but that doesn't account for the fact that in 1996 (data from my textbook, I don't know the exact data anymore), 81% of those who claim to have a Masters' degree or better vote Democrat.
Guest cartman Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 Yea Poverty, exactly. Noone that is poor would vote for a republican in their right mind because they know they are/will be screwed.
Guest Midnight Express83 Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 Most people in cities vote Dem because the party for the youth/lower middle class is Dem. Rep are older people and those who are upper middle class. Not alot of old people live in cities like New York. They move to Long Island, Upstate NY or New Jersey. That just how it breaks down now adays.
Guest MD2020 Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 True enough, Vern, but that doesn't account for the fact that in 1996 (data from my textbook, I don't know the exact data anymore), 81% of those who claim to have a Masters' degree or better vote Democrat. True. Also, I believe that the vast majority of voters who do not have a high school diploma vote Democratic. (Remember reading it; not sure where).
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 That's kinda funny how polarized it is.
Guest ElectricRaccoon Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 True enough, Vern, but that doesn't account for the fact that in 1996 (data from my textbook, I don't know the exact data anymore), 81% of those who claim to have a Masters' degree or better vote Democrat. True. Also, I believe that the vast majority of voters who do not have a high school diploma vote Democratic. (Remember reading it; not sure where). There's always the unspoken qualifier. 75% of those 81% are ridden with enough liberal guilt to lie about who they voted for, but not so much that they're willing to actually, you know, vote or anything.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 Yea Poverty, exactly. Noone that is poor would vote for a republican in their right mind because they know they are/will be screwed. But are the Democrats making things better for the poor people in this country?
Guest Some Guy Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 More than Republicans are. Uh? What? Since the "Great Society" was started in the 60s poverty levels have increased. The welfare system as it is just doesn't work. It gives people just enough that they can get by with minimal working and not quite enough so that they can invest to make money and so they can stop suking the tat of the government. That's how the Dems have managed to keep down poor people and keep getting them to vote for them. I don't think it's necesarrilly intentional but it's what's happening. EDIT: Furthermore the Dems have refused to address the real problem with inner city schools (poor teachers, as envidenced by the poor grammer, English skills, and succes of those who come from them) and prefer to just throw money at them and change nothing but the teachers salaries. The Dems don't want to lose the Union votes, so they won't stand up to them. They fight teacher testing, student testing, English immersion, and other programs that really help for that reason. The teahcers might actually have to, you know do their job properly if those were instituted so the Union doesn't want it. They just want the money and no accountability.
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 So what are Republicans doing? Also, cite your source that says poverty levels have increased.
Guest Some Guy Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 It's in one of Thomas Sowell's books. I don't have the numbers. The GOP is fighting for Welfare reform, education reform, vouchers (to get those kids into a better environment and better schools), etc... Throwing money at a problema dn expecting it to be magically fixed doesn't work. All the failures of the various social programs have proved this. There are always going to be people who can't/won't succeed. Drugs, stupidity, lazyness, whatever will always ensure that some never make it. But we can do better than this and we haev to stop worrying about hurting feelings and Unions to do it. To succed in this country you have to speak English (the liberals fight this), you have to speak understandable English (the liberals fight this, Ebonics for example), you have to have a basic knowledge of the major subjects (the liberals fight standardized testing [which are very easy, I took a test test and they have gotten easier since I was a guinee pig] to show this).
Guest Tyler McClelland Posted April 14, 2003 Report Posted April 14, 2003 It's in one of Thomas Sowell's books. I don't have the numbers. Then go find it in the government's figures, because I have shortsighted figures (ones of Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton, which show Clinton drew more people out of poverty than the others). (to get those kids into a better environment and better schools), Bullshit. Vouchers allow for exclusion and cause those same kids to be sent back to the now underfunded public schools, while the middle class kids get sent to a now overcrowded RELIGIOUS school, even if they're not religious. Throwing money at a problema dn expecting it to be magically fixed doesn't work. Then why throw money at defense? There are always going to be people who can't/won't succeed. Drugs, stupidity, lazyness, whatever will always ensure that some never make it. But we can do better than this and we haev to stop worrying about hurting feelings and Unions to do it. There are other issues besides those, but those are conveniently brought up a scapegoat. To succed in this country you have to speak English (the liberals fight this) and blah blah blah Republican rhetoric Whatever. Not every liberal follows these stupid benchmarks and you know it.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now