Re: The American Conservative Paul for President

by **ohio county** Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:51 am

The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,

The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and, all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

Many of them have been elected although in Jimmy Carter's case not in thirty years. The superdelegate system was instituted when Averell Harriman was beaten for election by a college student. Coincidentally, after Jimmy Carter was nominated Harriman said, "Jimmy Carter can not be President. I do not know him." So the democratic nomination can be decided by a collection of has-beens, also-rans, and professional political hacks. Hardly seems democratic...

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:59 am

Agreed. Interesting to note though, that at least this inequality is only a Party, whereas the Electoral inequality is at the heart of American Elections. Also, changing it would require ratification (more or less) by the very beneficiaries --the GOP and those sparsely populated Western States.

Hardly "fair" or Democratic.

by **ohio county** Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:07 am

How many electors have ever strayed from their state's popular vote?

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:38 am

A few. The "faithless electors".

Regardless, 1 electoral vote in Montana = 100,000 citizen votes.

1 vote in California =1,000,000 citizen votes.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

by **ohio county** Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:07 pm

Our electoral system with one formal change (12th amendment) and some evolutionary changes is pretty much the same today as it was 200 years ago.

I cannot imagine that a Constitutional amendment would be successful despite the fact there is no love for the Electoral College. Most folks believe one Montanan vote is worth ten Californian votes.

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:29 pm

Especially Montanans! Smile

by **ohio county** Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:32 pm

I think anyone to the right of California. Where'd you find the avatar of Yanni?

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:49 pm

Well, that's wrong for so many reasons. California is not that liberal (we have tons of Repugnicans in So.Cal...heck, even Republican Governors like Reagan).

But also the Nation's many Democrats who are not served fairly by the disproportionate weight given to those States. It puts those who benefit in charge of their own benefits.

Lastly, my Avatar is Danrad! Isn't that funny?

And you're still Red Green I see.

by Aaron Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:20 pm

SFCraig wrote:To Aaron: Yes, partially, to be sure. Anyone with voting power is partially to blame, including the US voting public.

Of course one needs to consider balance of power between branches, and the will of the public.

I'm proud to say that my Congresswoman was adamantly against the war from the beginning. It is important to note that in the Bay Area, being against a war is not a politically "courageous" vote either, though.

Know what I mean?

In a constitutional republic, we elect our representatives to do our speaking for us. Those that elected Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company are getting screwed big time, especially the ones that voted for those individuals based on promises to end the war.

All the do nothing democrats have managed to do is cave in on EVERY single issue, as they did today with FISA, and about all they've got in return is a couple of dollars an hour.

Which by the way is still less per hour then the vast majority of McDonalds and Wal Mart's start their employees at.

You guys are getting screwed big time.

Very Happy

by SFCraig Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:53 pm

True, but if the majority were Republican'ts the result would be the same or worse.

by Aaron Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:20 pm

The Republicans are in the minority and they still control Congress.

by Aaron Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:39 am

SFCraig wrote:Agreed. Interesting to note though, that at least this inequality is only a Party, whereas the Electoral inequality is at the heart of American Elections. Also, changing it would require ratification (more or less) by the very beneficiaries --the GOP and those sparsely populated Western States.

Hardly "fair" or Democratic.

Electoral delegates are apportioned by the number of combined Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The population discrepancy would come about based on Senators as the HOR is determined specifically by population.

This system is what will keep our Democracy going where others failed. As a result of the Electoral College, 8 to 10 states combined with major metropolitan areas cannot determine the outcome of the Presidential election. I think that is a good thing as the will of New York, Chicago, LA, Houston and other large cities are not representative of the entire United States of America.

I think it's a good thing.

by **ohio county** Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:51 am

Lastly, my Avatar is Danrad! Isn't that funny?

Yes, it is funny on many levels. I exchanged e-mail with Danrad a few weeks ago. He said that he might visit but was noncommital. I certainly don't blame him.

With regard to the fairness of those in Montana having the same weight as ten thousand Californians, yes, I think it is fair, too. The system was designed to not give too much weight to regional alliances which I see Aaron has already covered much better than me.

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:33 am

Sometimes you "old timers" make me feel like I'm really missing out becaues I don't know Danrad. Jimmy tell him how fabulous I am and that he has to "meet" me.

Laughing

by **ohio county** Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:35 am

You are sufficiently fabulous that is incumbent upon Danrad to meet you and not the other way around. Oh, sorry. You want me to tell him.

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:53 am

Awww shuck, Jimmy.

You really know how to win a girl over, don't ya?

by **ohio county** Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:56 am

Happy Valentine's Day, by the way. I feel like I already told him that. He'd just be another liberal to exasperate you. I liked Dan but he had a way of assuming some kind of moral authority and arguing past you. I recall his saying to Robo (regarding drilling in ANWR), "If you can't see the value of preserving nature then I can't explain it to you." And he was right - he couldn't.

by **Stephanie** Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:02 am

Happy Valentine's Day to you too!!!

Another liberal? I'm not sure I have the energy......

by Aaron Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:54 am

I have the energy, if not always the time. Bring him on... Very Happy

by SFCraig Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:17 pm

Dan would be mad that I am using his likeness. But I did it as an homage!

RE: Electoral College: It's as fair as the Stupordelegates, insofar as some votes are more equal than others.

And just like the war was supported by so many Gazette Bushies at one point, you would see this consensus change if it disproportionately amplified Liberal votes I have a feeling.

Save this thread for after the Election and we'll see. Smile

by SamCogar Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:48 am

Stephanie wrote:
Another liberal? I'm not sure I have the energy......

And a "partisan to the core" Democrat, to boot.

Steph, think of this, ......... ""ten (10) years of being nurtured by the Charleston Gazette owners, publishers and Editors." Sad

.

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:26 am

SamCogar wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
Another liberal? I'm not sure I have the energy......

And a "partisan to the core" Democrat, to boot.

Steph, think of this, ......... ""ten (10) years of being nurtured by the Charleston Gazette owners, publishers and Editors."

.

Ugh, I don't even wanna think about it, Sammy!

Fortunately, for me, I am not one of those women who thinks she can fix a man! 10 years of that kind of indoctrination would take at least 20 to correct. I'm not getting any younger you know. I might be eligible to receive transfer payments from Sherm myself by the time we got that fella lined out!!!!! Laughing

by **SheikBen** Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:43 am

Such wisdom, stephanie, such wisdom.

I think people think they can "change" their future/newly married spouses only because people can be so phony when they date. I made it a point to be every bit the snob and slob that I truly was when I dated my wife, such that the marriage did not show forth some evil monster encaged until the words "I do" escaped from my bride's mouth.

Very Happy

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:00 am

SheikBen wrote:Such wisdom, stephanie, such wisdom.

I think people think they can "change" their future/newly married spouses only because people can be so phony when they date. I made it a point to be every bit the snob and slob that I truly was when I dated my wife, such that the marriage did not show forth some evil monster encaged until the words "I do" escaped from my bride's mouth.

Michael,

We all have our warts, to be sure. However, I'm thinking Mrs. Sheik is probably a lucky lady. I'd be willing to bet you always treat her like royalty.

Hey, when is that new addition due???

Did I tell you I'm finally going to have a little niece or nephew of my own? I'm so excited. I'm going to be Aunt (rhymes with want) Stephanie instead of sounding like a character in A Bug's Life. (Ant Stephanie is how my little hillbillies all say it)

When my granddaughter was old enough to call me "Grandma" and both of my brothers still showed no signs of ever settling down into domestic bliss, I figured it was time to give up on that idea. Sometimes life pleasantly surprises you.

by **SheikBen** Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:31 pm

Mary Catherine Scheib is due June 24th, thanks!

Yes, Craig, she has a name, and I am quite glad that she needn't fear liberal parents! I saw the greatest photo of a baby saying "now that I'm safe, I'm all for Roe v Wade!"

by Sponsored content