more creative, free-spirited, more likely to make mistake

Guys, I'm preparing myself for my annual cookie baking extravaganza. lol Its the stuff of legends. My family has been talking about it for weeks and I've been planning and shopping for it for 2 months. I have Christmas cookies on the brain. I'd like to think about this after the cookies.

We do the same thing. In lieu of presents, we sent tins of cookies. We, too, have to start accumulating ingredients well in advance or the "all-at-once" cost would break us.

Also, the method each state uses to elect their federal representatives is their own damn business.

TerryRC wrote:
Also, the method each state uses to elect their federal representatives is their own damn business.

Not according to the constitution of the United States of America.

Not according to the constitution of the United States of America.

Really?

Where is that written (and I'm not saying that you are wrong)?

The COTUS sets the minimum age of Representatives and Senators, the minimum years that they have to be a citizen to serve, and the length of term.

I was not aware that the COTUS also dictated the method by which the respective states election run their elections as long as the states follow their respective election laws.

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

That says they may, Aaron. It doesn't say they must, or they will.

This American believes what works in California may not work so well in Rhode Island, and what's best for Alaskans may not be what's best for West Virginians. I also believe the closer to the "people" decisions are made, the better those decisons are likely to be for that group of people.

Take a look at who is in the US Senate and Congress these days. Do you really want that cast of characters telling us how to run elections? I sure as hell don't.

I think that was superceded by an amendment wasnt it?

In the beginning they werent even elected.

Unless I misunderstand its meaning, Sodbuster, the 17th Amendment does not change Article I, Section 4.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,
elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive
authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That
the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary
appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator
chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

I don't think setting uniform rules for electing Senators is telling us how to run elections Stephanie.

I also don't see how what is happening in Minnesota is good for Minnesota.

In polling prior to Dean Barkley entering the race in September, Norm Coleman was consistently ahead Franken by an average of about 6 to 8 points.

I honestly believe that if Barkley were removed from the ballot as Allen Buckley was in Georgia and a run off election were held, Minnesotans would soundly elect Coleman over that joke Democrats nominated by at least the same margin Chambliss won over Martin.

Aaron,

That is for Minnesotans to decide. It isn't for you and I to decide and it isn't for Jay Rock & Jack Reed to decide either.

Who says the Senate who select the best system, or even a better system? You know, forcing an election on a state comes with a pretty hefty price tag. So doesn't these automatic recount business. I think the loser should pay for the recount if they after the recount they are still the loser.

Of course, I can't believe that many people voted for Al Franken that it has come to this point. Good grief, what is the country coming to? Who's next? Pee Wee Herman?

That says they may, Aaron. It doesn't say they must, or they will.

This American believes what works in California may not work so well in Rhode Island, and what's best for Alaskans may not be what's best for West Virginians.

This American believes that the election procedures for electing federal level officehilders should be uniform across the UNITED States of America.

Why should Democratic Party or Republican Party or Green Party or even independent federal level candidates with no party affiliation, for example, have higher or lower hurdles for getting on the public ballot in North Carolina or Oregon than in West Virginia or Maine?

I would agree that there is no good reason to demand that one state elect its governor and state legislators under the same electoral rules as another state. But federal level officeholders should be elected within equal electoral procedures from state to state.

A Ralph Nader or a Ron Paul running for president should not be able to get on the ballot with only 25 signature petitions in some states, but have to gather petitions signatures of from two to 5 percent of registered voters in other states- just to get on the ballot.

Ah, but the President represents all Americans.

Stephanie wrote:That says they may, Aaron. It doesn't say they must, or they will.

Take a look at who is in the US Senate and Congress these days. Do you really want that cast of characters telling us how to run elections? I sure as hell don't.

Well Steph, do ya pose it is that "they may" ...... that is the root cause of "that cast of characters that is in the US Senate and Congress these days"?




.

Stephanie wrote:Ah, but the President represents all Americans.

Maybe he should, but I'm not at all sure that he does. .

When the mechanisms for selecting a president vary so much from state to state as they do, the proportionality of state by state representation varies considerably. For example, is it acceptable that a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul be on the presidential ballot in some states, but not in others?

"more creative, free-spirited, more likely to make mistake" ..... posted by ziggy

Well "DUH", ........... SURPRISE, SURPRISE, ...........huh?

Show me someone that is creative ........ and I will show you someone that is always trying to do something.

Ya can't be making mistakes if you are not doing anything, ......unless you are just a non-thinking clutsy or you don't really give a damn.



,

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ah, but the President represents all Americans.

Maybe he should, but I'm not at all sure that he does. .

When the mechanisms for selecting a president vary so much from state to state as they do, the proportionality of state by state representation varies considerably. For example, is it acceptable that a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul be on the presidential ballot in some states, but not in others?

I'm not arguing with you that the process for presidential candidates should be the same across the country. However, you need to be careful what you wish for. If the Congress were to decide to created and enforce uniform rules for the states, you may find they opt for a bar set so high candidates not affiliated with the GOP or Democrats can't get on the ballot anywhere.

All that aside, this isn't what Aaron and I were discussing. You're changing the subject.

If the Congress were to decide to created and enforce uniform rules for the states, you may find they opt for a bar set so high candidates not affiliated with the GOP or Democrats can't get on the ballot anywhere.

The Courts, including the US Supreme Court, have determined that ballot access bars cannot be so high as to effectively prohibit 3rd party and independent candidates from accessing the ballot- in violation of 1st amendments rights.

But Courts have not ruled that ballot access procedures in federal level elections need to be uniform, either. I do not know if they've been asked to make such a ruling. I will try to find out.

Ziggy,

You don't think that WV has made it too difficult for 3rd party candidates? Or, perhaps in WV's case I should say 4th party candidates. You do know what I mean, though.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

You don't think that WV has made it too difficult for 3rd party candidates? Or, perhaps in WV's case I should say 4th party candidates. You do know what I mean, though.

I know what you mean, and yes, West Virginia makes it too difficult for independent camdidates to get on the ballot and for 3rd / 4th parties to get and stay on the ballot. But the Courts seem to disagree.

Some states are even more strict than West Virginia, and some are less strict. That is why I beieve that for federal level elections there should be nationwide universal ballot acces procedures that meet the test of 1st Amendment rights of political candidates.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

You don't think that WV has made it too difficult for 3rd party candidates? Or, perhaps in WV's case I should say 4th party candidates. You do know what I mean, though.

I know what you mean, and yes, West Virginia makes it too difficult for independent camdidates to get on the ballot and for 3rd / 4th parties to get and stay on the ballot. But the Courts seem to disagree.

Some states are even more strict than West Virginia, and some are less strict. That is why I believe that for federal level elections there should be nationwide universal ballot access procedures that meet the test of 1st and 5th Amendment and other rights of people to participate in the political process.