The vote for President and Vice President is quite different from any other vote you will cast on Tuesday. When you view your ballot, it has written on it your choices (say you pick John McCain and Sarah Palin) but unlike other votes, this vote does not actually go to Senator McCain nor Governor Palin. Your vote is actually in favor of a pool of specially selected representatives from the Republican Party, equal to your state’s number of electoral votes. These Electors pledge to support their party’s candidates, are NOT constitutionally bound to vote for either McCain or Palin. Electors are chosen by the States and the Electors elect the President and Vice-President. So, in effect, you are voting for a group of Jane or Joe Schmoe’s. [Except in Maine and Nebraska, where things get a little more complicated.]
However, the states can bind the candidates to vote a certain way by law. Each state has a different method of selection. To find out what your state does, please visit here.
In addition to the interesting tie-breaking rules, the Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:
The Electors shall… name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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. [FYI the current "President of the Senate" is Dick Cheney.]
So November 4, 2008 is the date that the states select the Electors, and on December 15, the Electoral College will select the next President and Vice President. Currently all states have a popular vote, but this is not mandated by the Constitution; the process is up to each state. Now for a few ideas for 2012, some may be in violation of same other law, but most likely this so-called "law" is in violation of the Constitution.
________________________________________________________________
Break the President and VP into Two Votes on State Ballots
The Twelfth Amendment was a result of the Founding Fathers’ not having anticipated political parties slapping both their President and Vice President together on the same ballot, which caused quite a debacle during the 1800 Jefferson/Burr election. In the first couple elections, the Vice President was simply the Presidential candidate who received the second highest total of electoral votes. So instead of having McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden take office together, either McCain or Obama would win President, and the runner-up would be VP.
Based on the feedback of many online articles and friends’ opinions, it appears that many of the Obama supporters fear McCain as President, and the McCain supporters are scared to death of an Obama Presidency. Wouldn’t a much better compromise be to simply break the ballot in two, and have two ballots instead of a bundled one?
Those that wish to only support Republicans or Democrats could still do so, but there would be more freedom of choice. Say, for instance, tomorrow where some Republicans decide they absolutely cannot support John McCain, so they instead vote Obama. Wouldn’t a better result for the Republican Party have been to let this voter choose Obama for President and Palin for Vice President? I believe the end effect would be the following:
________________________________________________________________
Repeal the Twelfth Amendment
Or, in a similar fashion, the states could repeal the Twelfth Amendment. In our bi-polar party system, this would mean each party runs one person for President, and the loser would become VP. So instead of Bush/Cheney, in 2000 we would have elected Bush/Gore, in 2004 we would have elected Bush/Kerry. How different the last 8 years might have been! It seems to me that overall these outcomes would be acceptable to far more of the population, as well as to serve as a check and balance on the winning party.
________________________________________________________________
Now, the Republicans and Democrats may simply collude to maintain the status quo, and minimize the chances of any high-caliber third party candidate from succeeding at either President or VP roles, but I fail to see why the third parties could not press the issue at the state levels and constitutionally press for the right to separate their Elector pool, or at the very least take the rebellious step of listing only a candidate for Vice President.
Further Reading: A reader sent me this article on the Electoral College which is a fascinating read for those interested in learning more.
________________________________________________________________
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.
________________________________________________________________
Other Recent Articles by the Author
Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran's Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15 (Part 1/3)
Published: October 25, 2008
What? Yet another event the media completely missed? After multiple attempts to engage McBama to answer their questions, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) led a peaceful march on the last McCain-Obama Presidential Debate and were met with 30 mounted police and a horde of others in riot gear. The mounted police stamped on an Iraq war veteran's face and attacked the crowd. Ron Paul supporter and veteran Adam Kokesh was arrested as well.
Iraq Demands US Troops Leave by 2011
Published: November 2, 2008
The unending Global War of Terror occupation in Iraq hits a minor roadbump. What if the Iraqis have fully recovered from Shock and Awe and want their country back?
Barack Obama - America's Half-Blood Prince
Published: November 1, 2008
A comment on Steve Sailer's new book on Barack Obama
Semi-Spoof News Flash - American Forces Attack Syria, Eight Die
Can Barack Obama Be President? - THE SAGA CONTINUES! (10/29 Update)
Published: October 29, 2008
Senator Barack Obama wins a temporary delay in the court system but has yet to prove in a court of law that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States
FDIC Gives Alpha Bank the Axe!
NY Times Reports the Banks Say They Will Hoard their Bailout Cash-Loot
An Anti-Ron Paul Deflationary Economic TheorySummary of Articles for Jake, the Champion of the Constitution (10/31/2008)
©2008 Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, November 3, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
| More Articles By Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-03 09:05:27
Jake,
So, if the choice is to get STUCK IN THE HEART with a big knife, or to SWING FROM A TREE in a noose, you think we should have SEPARATE BALLOTS!
Man, you're the kind of thinker we need to solve our FINANCIAL CRISIS. You'd probably have us just mix a lot of DEBT with a lot of FORECLOSURES and think that was the solution we need.
Ha! Ha! Ha! What a GENIUS!
Master C
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-11-03 19:29:04
All - I want to paste in some feedback that this article received at another website
from mvymvy
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
from wrdalton
The solution to the problem of presidential elections is to do away with the popular vote entirely. The nation’s founders were deathly afraid of a popularly elected President, who would accrue the the powers of a King. It took the strong integrity of George Washington to prevet him becoming one. The framers of the Constitution didn’t even trust having statewide popular elections of U.S. Senators. The House of Representatives, each member representing a district or state of, at most, a few thousand people, who would know those candidates for office personally, was as far as they would trust the inherently corruptible democratic system. It was called the people’s house. But U.S. Senators would be chosen by State Assemblies and Legislatures, composed of people who would know the candidates they are voting for, and the President and Vice President would be chosen by electors, themselves chosen by the people because these electors would be knowledgable of and conversant with the likely candidates to head the U.S. government.
High public office could no longer be bought and sold when office holders are chosen by those who know the issues, know the candidates, and who themselves, are seeking no private benefit from the government. We should be choosing such electors on the basis of these qualifications, in their own names, and not the names of people who want to grab the power of government for themselves.