President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 29, 2006 09:00 AM UTC
150 Comments
Actually, I’m not a fan of any of those. And you may be the first to compare him to Musgrave, Tancredo or Holzman. Careful, those are strong statements, and are completely unfounded.
And no, I don’t believe the voters are stupid, I do beleive that “requiring an attention span of 15 consecutive minutes” details exactly why a change is needed. Voting should be an understandable process, and one that everyone feels confident participating in.
Getting back to the issue at hand, as Druid pointed out, the Dems in Wyoming have had no impact on their political system, just as Republicans in CA. Why not allow them a voice?
Disregarding the “constitutional issues” that you may think you have, go back to your political science class, read a little Kaplan, and try to see the detriment that is caused when citizens aren’t involved.
Everyone touts the successes of the voters of Iraq and Afgahnistan, let’s also focus on voters in our country who feel no connection to the process.
This bill puts Colorado in the national spotlight, and changes not only the way people think about voting, but about how presidential campaigns are waged.
BMR,
Mitch’s post was thoughtful and inoffensive.
Here’s what you apparently objected to:
Mitch wasn’t saying *he* didn’t understand the Electoral College; you put those words in his mouth.
Confidence in our elections is a serious problem. My hunch is Mitch is right–most people don’t understand the mechanics of the EC. I agree with you that’s profoundly disappointing if it’s true, but I also agree with Mitch that Gordon’s proposal could potentially simplify things for some states.
For example, when students were shown a simple video of the mundane task of someone going to vote, their own voting participation increased dramatically, with no other prodding. Any amount of unfamiliarity or confusion hurts voter turnout.
Simpler = more confidence in voting = more votes.
It’s justified to lament what this says about the American electorate, but I’d rather try to improve things, and I think Ken Gordon’s bill does that.
Voyageur,
Then it’s odd that you said this:
In what way does Gordon’s proposal “scrap” the Constitution?
Or were you referring to something else?
No, Bznit – I posted what I found to be offensive, there’s no need for you to decide that for me.
I guess, B-nit, you aren’t a liar after all, only incredibly stupid. The electoral college is established by the constitution, deliberately to give weight to the voice of states. I accurately point out that the Gordon proposal outflanks the constitution in this area, yes, scraps it clear directives and goes it without offering the states a voice. It takes three fourths of the states to amend the constitution, you’re flacking a scheme that would allow just 12 states to void its intent. And you are either too stupid or too duplicitous to know that amounts to “scrapping” it? So in frustration, you have the nerve to call me a liar? You’re a stupid man, Sir.
BMR,
You’re really off the rails today.
Go Raiders,
No surprise you pick your sports teams like you do your politicians: Slimy leadership, doesn’t follow the rules of the game, shady supporters, and at the end of all the cheating and sliminess, they still suck and don’t win.
Bznit:
I pointed out a post that insults any thinking person.
Don’t like it? Don’t read it.
So can someone tell me why it is bad if the candidates focus more on the big cities and states? Why should the urban vote count less than a farmer in Kansas? Yeah, more people live in cities, they are the majority, they should get their perportional representation in our government. So while most of Ireland lives in Dublin, shouldn’t they get most of the representation…doesn’t seem very representative to give Limerick just as much say as Dublin…
Don’t spread lies: future Secretary of State Ken Gordon’s proposal does not amend the Constitution.
-0-
You are the liar here, Beaupreznit. My very first post noted
Actually, Nice, it’s not a constitutional amendment, it’s an attempt to outflank the constitution. If states comprising a majority of the electoral college vote sign this compact, a legal contract, agreeing to cast their votes for the popular vote winner, then it would work. In theory, as few as 12 states, the largest, could agree and the other 38 states would have no voice.
-0-
So, you don’t have a legitimate answer and, rather than argue the merits , you accuse me of lying. Typical tactic of a bankrupt ideologue.
Bad Moon Rising,
your concern about California dominating the election is patently ridiculous! The U.S. is a very large country. Even if a candidate won EVERY SINGLE vote cast in California, New York, and Texas (our three biggest states), they would barely have 25% of the vote. In fact, a candidate could win every single vote cast in the ten biggest states and still not have a majority. And, of course, no state will ever go unanimously for one candidate. California, for example, voted 54-45 for Kerry over Bush, and Texas is another large state that will contribute more votes to the Republican candidate. As much as paranoids on either side would like to make this a partisan thing, it really isn’t.
And, as Gordon points out in the press release (for those who read it carefully), “A popular vote would BOOST Colorado’s proportional influence, relative to the electoral vote.” Colorado traditionally has a higher turnout than the national average, we have more total votes cast (as a percentage of the national total) than we do electoral votes (as a percentage of the total). Thus, our state will have more influence under this state-based popular vote system.
The Electoral College needs a push for change, b/c no one understands it. Try explaining to a new voter how their vote is counted, and they will start to glaze over.
******************
Good grief. Maybe YOU don’t understand it, but all it would require is an attention span of more than 15 consecutive minutes.
What a typcial response from a liberal: “I’m too naive to understand these ‘complex’ issues, Mr. Government Man, so you go ahead and do as you please, I’ll just be sitting here waiting for my handout from you, Mr. Government Man.”
Voyageur,
You said:
Don’t spread lies: future Secretary of State Ken Gordon’s proposal does not amend the Constitution.
I think the proposal has merit, you obviously don’t. How about dealing with the specifics of the bill instead of inventing caricatures?
Very interesting, it seems that the party that hasn’t been able to win the Presidency the past 2 elections now wants to change the rules. Is that because they think that under a new system they could win, or is it just because they want a new thing to bitch about when they eventually lose?
Sounds to me like they are on a path to change the rules until they find some that they can win by.
Sounds to me like PR and BMR refuse to acknowledge that their claims hold neither bearing nor truth.
*************************
Funny stuff. When you get around to proving my statements as false, then we can hold a reaonable discussion. So far, however, you’ve put words into my posts that aren’t there (I never said anything about what office Gordon was running for, for starters) – AND I am 100% correct in stating that Gordon’s “idea” is neither original nor good.
Point: Doing away with the EC has come up several times – only by Dems – since the 2000 election.
Point: Using a simple majority is NOT a good idea, because it allows for only the most populous of states (and in some cases, cities) to elect the POTUS. There’s nothing COMPLACENT about having a truly representative government.
I’ll offer Ireland as one example. They are a democracy, and do not have an electoral system such as ours. The result there is that 90% of the focus in elections and their results center on the most populous city, Dublin. The rest of the country, particularly the west, is left out of the planning when it comes to their economy.
So far, no one has disproved my point about the most populous states (CA, NY, IL) electing the POTUS. The simple fact is, that IS what would happen, and most Dems know it – thus this “great idea” which has been floated several times since 2000. It isn’t a happenstance that the screeching has suddenly become louder in the past 6 years, when for 211 years the system has worked just as designed. It’s because Gore lost, plain and simple, and now the liberals want to change the rules.
Go for it. It requires a 2/3 majority of the states to ratify, and it won’t happen because it’s NOT a good idea.
Druid: Grow up.
If standing outside the political comfort zone is your acid test, Mitch, you must be a huge fan of Tom Tancredo, Marilyn Musgrave and Marc Holtzman. Radical they may be, but they certainly aren’t comfortable.
As for me, I’ll stick with the U.S. Constitution as it is, rather than scrap it for something dreamed up by a dozen wild-eyed liberals over a case of Scotch.
A,
‘Remember, when the U.S. was founded only white, male, landowners were allowed to vote’
You have one thing right ‘a,’ the Democrat-Republican party does not resemble the modern day Democrats, just as the Lincoln Republicans would roll in their graves if they saw the policies of modern day Republicans to increase their own wealth and power while turning a blind eye to the underprivelaged.
As much as you may want the US to go back to being country where only white males have the power, the Republicans are losing touch with society (ironic, they never really had any touch, only gaining votes by scaring them into the ballot box). This will be extremely apparent in November, you can bank on that.
Roger D,
You really need a history lesson. Ironically the party that Jefferson formed was based on states rights and limited federal control, not the big federal government that Democrats love so much. The party of Jefferson has no similarities to the modern Democrat Party. The Democrats have just usurped Jefferson to use as their icon.
Remember, when the U.S. was founded only white, male, landowners were allowed to vote. So I think that saying that the leaders of the founding era were elected democratically would be a stretch.
Druid,
You are silly. If you read the Constitution you would find that Senators, before the 17th Amendment, were appointed by the state legislatures for terms of six years. So, they didn?t do a good job the legislatures would simply appoint someone else.
Actually, take another, Hillary’s health care plan was killed when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Reaction to it contributed to the Republican takeover in 1994.
As to Huh’s comment, I can’t imagine that Hillary would run for president. I was being purely hypothetical with that one ;^).
Gordon’s not running for Congress, but nice attempt to write off his ideas.
This is a fantastic new way of looking at the American political landscape, and invigorating voters in states where their votes haven’t mattered.
The Electoral College needs a push for change, b/c no one understands it. Try explaining to a new voter how their vote is counted, and they will start to glaze over. Its important to our interest in political involvement to get this idea put into practice.
Gordon, you’re one of the few who will step out of the political comfort zone and make a big stand for the average voter, and for that, I thank you.
Did anybody see the newest DCCC commercial against Rick O’Donnell about stem cell research. It hits pretty hard and really blows the lid off of Rubberstamp Rick’s attempt to masquerade as a moderate.
http://www2.dccc.org/video/odonnells_choice_small.wmv
Roger D,
More than willing to admit my mistake, I got the office Gordon is running for wrong.
a
On another note. When Jefferson originally formed what is now the Democratic party, it was originally known as the Democratic-Republican party.
He understood what we were.
PR,
Wasn?t it Hillary who came forward with a new plan for health care in 1994? Which was, consequently, killed in the House under Newt Gingrichs control.
The only ideas that comes out of the Conservative camp is for privatizations of, well, everything. If the private sector was as efficient as the public (at least as it was pre-Bush), then it would be a good idea to consider. Unfortunately the private sector only fails when they initiate program into the public sphere such as vouchers (remind us all what happened to those 1000 students in Colorado who got screwed out of their in-state tuition because of this program?), and when corporations like Ford decided to insure their employees and then close their plant to move to another country that already has health care provided.
Hmm…Sounds to me like PR and BMR refuse to acknowledge that their claims hold neither bearing nor truth.
Sincerely,
a,
“Ever since U. S. Senators have been directly elected by the people they have worried more about getting re-elected and not about states rights, which was the reason the founding fathers made their position an appointment, not an elected position.”
—
You are a socialist! Sounds like the House of Lords to me. Yeah bad idea to have those Senators worry about the will of the people! I mean if senators did not have to worry about re-election they could do whatever they want! Bankrupt the country, raise taxes, and screw small business. Whoopee!
a:
We are by definition a democratic republic (or as I noted to BMR) a republican democracy. We democratically elect our representatives, therefore we are a democracy and the ultimate (in theory) power of government flows from the people – the governed – which makes us a republic.
Great Britain, for instance, is a democracy, but is not a republic. As I stated earlier, one can have republics that are not necessarily democracies. We are both, by definition of what we are.
take another,
“historically the Democrats are those who step forward with changes to make American Democracy work.”
Wow, Democrats are so progressive, that must be why they are against any changes to the status quo when it comes to choice in education, changes to the social security system, or changes to Medicad and Medicare. They are so progressive that they will not stand for changes to any of these failed programs.
Roger D,
I am more than willing to admit my mistake, I was getting Gordon and Perlmutter confused. The big fog of liberalism sometimes gets to me.
You are right about Senators, the 17th amendment changed how they were elected, which I also think was a big mistake. Ever since U. S. Senators have been directly elected by the people they have worried more about getting re-elected and not about states rights, which was the reason the founding fathers made their position an appointment, not an elected position.
As for being a democratic republic, please show me one founding father or founding document that refers to the United States as a democratic republic.
BMR,
But “federal republic” only refers to the fact that we have self-governing states federated into a central government. It says nothing about our election system.
The U.S. is also considered a presidential democracy, or more generally, a democracy. Surely you wouldn’t argue America is not a democracy?
Changing the allocation of electors as future Secretary of State Ken Gordon suggests will have the affect of lessening the disproportionate influence that sparesely populated states now have. We’d be complaining about President Gore right now if this system had been in place for 2000. I think it’s a great idea, but I’m very skeptical that enough other states will sign on.
BMR,
“The only reason that Gordon mentions Florida and Ohio is due to the whining that’s gone on since 2000 (and later in 2004”
—
Your’e the one whining now. He he he. Afraid that the actual popular vote will leave you high and dry? Awww.
BMR,
You post daily with conflated statements and propagate them only matching a Rovian disinformation campaign. If you can only come forward with ad homonym attacks, you prove yourself and your argument to weak.
Gordon is running for Secretary of State; not Congress. He has served as an honest Representative and Senator in Colorado and has the citizens of this state best interest in mind. He brings fresh ideas to the table to ?make democracy work? instead of toeing the line that so many sheepish conservatives do.
The founders of our country had our system right, when they allowed for changes to be made. It?s not a totalitarian system (though you may wish it, it?s not!), and, historically the Democrats are those who step forward with changes to make American Democracy work.
As Ken said, ?Democracy does not just happen. It has to be fought for by every generation, every year, every day. It can be lost by complacency.?
BMR:
I beg to differ. You can have republics that are not democracies, just as you can have democracies that are not republics. We are a democratic republic, or a republican democracy if you prefer.
Perhaps you should check your civics definitions.
We’ve NEVER been termed a “democratic republic”.
The United States is, and always has been, a “federal republic”.
Stop digging. You’re only getting deeper.
For several years, I have supported doing away with the electoral college altogether. When we as Americans vote for our President, we should each have a vote that counts the same as anyone else’s vote. It should not matter what state we live in.
I will not be supporting Gordon’s plan.
And he is not running for Congress, he’s running for Secretary of State.
point of fact our nation is a democratic republic. We are indeed a democracy.
*********************
Note to Roger: you need some US civics courses.
We are a representative democracy, often termed a democratic republic.
We elect our representative through democractic means.
Voyageur-
Are you saying Hillary is running? haha
a:
Speaking of not having a clue, Ken Gordon is not running for Congress. In point of fact our nation is a democratic republic. We are indeed a democracy. However, your statement has nothing to do with issue of direct election of a president. In our democratic republic we have direct election of our representatives and senators. At one time we did not directly elect senators, they were selected by state legislatures, however that changed (just as the direct election of the president could change) to allow direct election by the populace.
It amazes me that someone like Gordon, who is running for Congress, has no clue that the United States in not a Democracy, but a representative republic. Big difference.
***********************
It doesn’t amaze me.
Gordon’s “idea” is neither original nor good.
He wants you to believe that a simple majority vote will help put places like Colorado “on the map”. Well, newsflash for Gordon: Colorado IS on the map. If he wants it erased, then his “idea” will do just that, because NY, IL and CA will be electing the president,and the smaller states won’t even show up on the radar. Also note that those 3 states have long been “blue” states – which is precisely WHY a Democrat is endorsing such stupidity.
The Founders of our country had it right when they framed elections the way they did.
The only reason that Gordon mentions Florida and Ohio is due to the whining that’s gone on since 2000 (and later in 2004). NONE of the allegations made by Democrats and their army of lawyers have been proven to be true. Interesting, though, that Dems don’t talk about their in New Mexico and Wisconsin, though.
This is dumbest idea ever.
Liberals can’t win with the system in place, so the only “solution” they can offer is: fix it so we can win. Witness also the multitude of recounts in Washington state for their Governor’s race. Pure liberal shenanigans again.
“This legislation will make America?s most important election more democratic.?
It amazes me that someone like Gordon, who is running for Congress, has no clue that the United States in not a Democracy, but a representative republic. Big difference.
Actually, Huh, states are irrelevant in this scheme. If a huge majority in California totaled more votes than the tiny majorities in the other 49 states, then the states that signed the compact would be obligated to cast their votes, at least 270, to the popular vote winner even if he carried just one state. Hypothetically, Ralph Nader carries California by a million votes. Hillary Clinton carries 49 states and the District of Columbia by average margins of 15,000. Nader has 250,000 more popular votes and he becomes president. I, of course, immediately run for the Canadian border.
Voyaguer-
How would your California scenario work? If 49 states go republican, even if the compact is reached, the rep. gets 270. Is 70% of california’s population a majority? I don’t think it is, thus again giving the white house to the rep. I might be missing something here, so fill me in please…thanks.
Actually, Nice, it’s not a constitutional amendment, it’s an attempt to outflank the constitution. If states comprising a majority of the electoral college vote sign this compact, a legal contract, agreeing to cast their votes for the popular vote winner, then it would work. In theory, as few as 12 states, the largest, could agree and the other 38 states would have no voice.
The constitution gives states discretion as to how they cast their electoral votes so it would probably be legal. In my judgment, it would also stink. Theoretically, if California went for a Democrat by 70/30 and all 49 others went Republican, 51/49, the California floodtide would cancel out all other 49 states. and the Democrat would win the white house. To repeat, it’s not a constitutional amendment, it’s a scheme deliberately designed to outflank the constitution.
I think this is an absolutely STUPENDOUS idea. This will benefit the poor Republican who lives in California and the poor Democrat who lives in Wyoming.
I know some Democrats in Wyoming, and believe me it sucks.
The problems with bills like this is that making it a nation-wide constitutional ammendment will not happen, at least not in our life times IMO.
The ides of March?
Dead Govs, aren’t you a day late (okay, a few days late) and a dollar short?
SENATOR GORDON INTRODUCES STATE-BASED PLAN
FOR THE NATIONWIDE POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Denver?Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon introduced legislation today to enter Colorado into an interstate compact to elect the President of the United States based on the national popular vote.
?The President represents the entire country,? said Gordon. ?So why should Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania receive nearly all of the attention during the campaign and wield a vastly disproportionate effect on the outcome? This legislation will make America?s most important election more democratic.?
A popular vote would boost Colorado?s proportional influence, relative to the electoral vote. Colorado possesses 9 of the nation?s 538 electoral votes, or 1.67% of the total. But in 2004, Coloradans cast 2,148,036 ballots out of a nationwide vote of approximately 125,736,000, making up 1.71% of the total. As Colorado?s population continues to grow at a rate faster than the national average, the benefits to our state of a switch to a national popular vote will grow.
The proposed interstate compact, once approved by a sufficient number of states, will award all of the participating states? electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. The compact will not go into effect until states possessing a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes have enacted the legislation.
Under the current Electoral College system, voters in non-swing states (37 of 50, in 2004) are effectively disenfranchised. When a state?s electoral votes are locked up for one candidate, any ballots cast for the other candidate fail to benefit that because they do not affect the electoral vote total. Democratic votes are lost in solidly red states and Republican votes are lost in solidly blue states. Voters have little incentive to show up at the polls, and candidates have no reason to campaign in these states.
?If we elect the President based on which candidate gets the most total votes nationwide, then your ballot will count toward your candidate?s total, no matter what state you live in,? said Gordon.
Polls have consistently shown that approximately 70% of voters across the country support the election of the President and Vice President according to the national popular vote.
In 2004, voters defeated Amendment 36 because they did not want to weaken Colorado?s national influence. ?The elegance of this plan is that the legislation will only take effect once it has been enacted by enough states to elect a President by the national popular vote,? said Senator Gordon. ?We?re not putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage while we wait for other states to join.?
The same legislation has already been introduced in Illinois, Louisiana, California, and Missouri.
Senator Gordon?s bill is co-sponsored by Senators Evans (R), Entz (R), and Groff (D), and by Representatives Plant (D) and Larson (R).
?This isn?t a Democratic or a Republican proposal,? said Gordon. ?It?s about giving every voter in America an equal say in who becomes President.?
Colorado is already a party to a number of interstate compacts dealing with water rights, driver licenses, adoption of children, and other policy areas where Colorado benefits from coordination and agreement with other states. These compacts, which are introduced and enacted like any other piece of state legislation, create a legally enforceable contractual obligation among the member states.
Under the current system, Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to suffer if the candidate who receives the most votes is not the one who becomes President. In 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, by more than 500,000 votes, to Democrat Al Gore. But the reverse nearly happened in 2004. If Democrat John Kerry had swung 60,000 votes in Ohio, he would have won the electoral vote, 272 to 266, while losing the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes.
The state-by-state effort is supported by the bipartisan coalition National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com). The group?s advisory committee consists of prominent national Democrats and Republicans: former Congressman John B. Anderson (R-IL), former Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), former Congressman John Buchanan (R-AL), Congressman Tom Campbell (R-CA), former Senator David Durenberger (R-MN), and former Senator Jake Garn (R-UT).
# # #
This could really put Colorado on the map, which is great for everyone. Also, it’s not like we’re the only state doing this. This is a great idea. We cannot have another Flordia 2000. I’m proud of Sen. Gordon for supporting this movement.
Druid,
Please tell me where I can find a statment by Tancredo that he wants to make all immigrants illegal.
You can’t do it because he has never said that.
Dan Quayle ’08,
You must be creating words in your mind that were never typed. The phrase “Conservatives don’t do drugs”, was never posted by me, here are my words:
“And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs”
Ok, did you read that? Here it is again, just to make sure, I know you liberals like to put words in people’s mouths (a la CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC News):
“And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs”
Dan Quayle ’08, do you need me to repeat anything else for you? I know it takes awhile for you liberals to catch on.
I’d like to point out that ‘PR’ hasn’t posted in this thread until now.
BMR, you want disproof? How about this: CA, NY, and IL (the three states with the most electoral votes) all vote Democratic already. They already effectively give every single one of their citizens’ votes to the Democratic Presidential candidate – how would it be “worse” in that way? Candidates now spend disproportionate time in swing states; this change – if adopted by enough states – would change candidate strategies, but wouldn’t make things “better” or “worse” in that respect.
I’m not sure I like the popular vote change myself. The Founders created the electoral college for two reasons: to elect representatives who would make an informed decision about the President, and to give greater representation to smaller states. That first reason is no longer valid; electors vote almost entirely with party affiliation (and are forbidden from voting otherwise by some states…). But the second reason still holds weight for me. What I’d like to see is proportional representation of electors – i.e. each state sends electors proportional to the vote in their state. But that would require a Constitutional Amendment to effect. The beauty of the system being forwarded on by Sen. Gordon is that it is independent of the Amendment process; it works by the collusion of a majority of the electors. To be sure, the proposal isn’t new, but I don’t think it’s as bad as BMR paints it.
BTW, to further untangle the history of the Democratic party, the Democratic-Republicans were originally formed not as a political party, but as a lobbying block for the Bill of Rights. Under Jefferson it represented rural ethics and, yes, states’ rights; it was opposed by Hamilton and his friends, who were more industrialist/banker types by stereotypical trade. Andrew Jackson formalized the party’s position as the party of the people. Republicans in Lincoln’s day were the Federalists; it took FDR’s wholesale revitalization effort to swing Democrats over to “big government”; the Dixiecrat migrations under Truman and LBJ finished the partial transformation.
But Democrats are still the party of the Bill of Rights after all these years, and it seems Republicans are proving just how much they’re still the Real party of the Federalist ideal of strong central government.
I’m not begging the question, Brio. The founding fathers clearly intended states, acting as states, to select the president. They ABHORED the idea of the people doing so directly. The idea was that the best and brightest of the states would select the electors, who would serve as kind of a search committee and ultimately select a president. All 50 states now allow direct election of electors though two, Nebraska and Maine, don’t use winner take all. The winner of each congressional district gets an electoral vote to reflect that representative. The overall state winner gets a bonus of two to represent the senators. Pointing out the absurd result of a president elected without carrying a single state, because of a huge plurality in D.C., merely underscores how far this cockamamie scheme would veer from the vision of those rascals Madison, Jefferson, Mason and their ilk. As to your question about the enforcability of the compact, compacts are contracts and can, if necessary, be enforced in court. If you think the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. made a circus out of the 2000 election, think of what a brawl that would be!
I’m not denying this scheme could be a legal means to outflank the constitution. But it would certainly circumvent that document and trash its vision of ordered liberty. By its logic, the legislatures of the 11 largest states could agree in pertuity to give their votes to the Democratic candidate, ensuring the donkeys would rule forever. It would be just as legal as the popular vote scheme.
BMR, you are forgetting to read the entire statement…there is a “more than necessary’ qualifier in there, meaning the hurricane was not his fault, but the excessive damage (beyond what most Catagory 4 hurricanes cause) is the administrations fault (and others, yes, please don’t come back with that hackneyed diatribe).
As Beaupreznit points out, the Constitution gives states the right to decide how they appoint electors. Thus, it would be no derogation of either the constitution or state’s rights for a group of states to exercise their right to chose electors in a different manner than is now the case.
****************
Then consider this:
In 2004, California cast more than 12 million total votes for President.
That’s more than 14 (fourteen) Western states combined. MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, AZ, NM, NV, CO, TX, OK, KS, NE, and ID.
From the article….
….”Under the current Electoral College system, voters in non-swing states (37 of 50, in 2004) are effectively disenfranchised. When a state?s electoral votes are locked up for one candidate,”….
Pardon me, but if I remember correctly Bubba (Clinton) carried both Arkansas AND Tennessee in 1992 & 1996. In early August of 2000 Gore had a commanding lead (Double Digits) in the polls and by the time Oct. was here Bush closed in and Won the election because Gore was not electable! Nor was Kerry! Gore couldn’t even carry his former boss’ state let alone his very own state of Tenn. in 2000. How embarrassing. And so the stolen election of 2000 carries on…….
……But wait if we can only get the states to agree on a popular vote only, then our illegal immigrant voters will help us to victory and then we’ll subsidize them and future generations. How unconstitutional!
I don’t know how to break this to you, Druid, but undocumented workers, your euphemism for illegal immigrants, can’t vote. So no matter where you ship them, they won’t swing an election, because only citizens can vote. As I said, I’m not trying to convince you, a hopeless task. But under your dumbbell plan, you could theoretically elect a president who didn’t carry a SINGLE state. Al Sharpton wins the the District of Columbia by 100,000 votes in a two-way race with Hillary. Hillary carries all 50 states by 1,500 votes each. President Sharpton takes office even though he didn’t carry a SINGLE state. Druid is happy but the constitution is in the trash can.
Druid,
Once again you’ve resorted to falsehoods to try and prove your point.
Tancredo has NOT suggested that we make “all immigrants felons”, as “a” stated.
He has NEVER suggested that. And yet, your lies about it continue, which only serve to weaken your stance. Again.
Voyageur, because your argument rests on hypotheticals concerning how many states a candidate carries, it begs the question of whether it is preferable for states or individuals to elect the president. If one believes it is preferable for individuals to be the electors, then how many states a candidate carries is irrelevant.
As Beaupreznit points out, the Constitution gives states the right to decide how they appoint electors. Thus, it would be no derogation of either the constitution or state’s rights for a group of states to exercise their right to chose electors in a different manner than is now the case.
In my mind, the questions are two. First, is it preferrable to have individuals or states elect the president. I favor individuals, because of general democratic leanings and the belief that the “battle grounds state” phenomenon is bad for the civil engagement necessary to any democratic system, direct, representative, republican, or otherwise. However, I recognize that there are downsides – including the frightening prosepct of a nationwide recount in the event of a really close election (think Florida times 50).
The second question is whether such a compact would be enforceable. Assume in the compact is reached, with California a party, and a republican wins the popular vote, but if California casts its electors for the democrat, s/he will win in the electoral college. If it’s legislature decides to break the compact to see the democratic elected, can the other parties to the compact prevent its doing so(the Constitution says each state gets to determine how its appoints electors, after all)? I have no clue (and have not had the time to try and figure it out yet, so maybe the answer’s obvious), but I’d sure want to know the answer before supporting Gordon’s plan.
the Republican Administration’s ignorance CAUSED an entire city (and coast) to be flooded and damaged much more than was necessary.”
— Dan Quayle 08
***********
LOL
You’re right. No need to make an inference when your implication is clear.
Voyageur: Right back at you, my friend.
Conservatives don’t do drugs…aren’t we forgetting about a particular coke-addicted alcoholic??? And why should I:
‘Believe me, the Democrats and liberals in the U.S are operating solely on hate right now’
Um, last time I checked, I am a Democrat and you’re not, so I will trust my own intentions and beliefs, but thanks for trying to spoon feed them to me.
And I specifically left off the illegal portion of my immigrant statement because I am sure Tancredo would love to send all immgrants home, regardless of their legal status (but you are right in that he is not a credible Republican).
“your funny. I can’t think of one credible Republican who has suggested that we make all immigrants felons.”
—
You CAN’T? Hello! Tom Tancredo! Thats one.
“Hell, in Theory, you could win by carrying just Wyoming by 100,000 votes while the other guy carried the other 50 (ioncluding DC) by a thousand each.”
There is no way this would happen. Even if it did there would probobly be a damn good reason for it. Perhaps the current administration decided to ship all undocumented workers to Wyoming?
Either way I would STILL support it. It is still the polular vote.
BMR, I apologize for occasionally treating you unkindly in the past. You are doing yeomanlike duty today along with “a.” I have to go back to the squalid task of earning a living so carry on, Sir! I leave the future of the Republic in your capable hands.
Lamm jabs at opponent
Peggy Lamm took her first negative swipe at Ed Perlmutter, her main challenger in the 7th Congressional District Democratic primary, on
Lamm jabs at opponent
Monday as he was basking in the endorsement of the state’s largest labor federation.
Lamm’s jab at Perlmutter came in the form of a news release hailing the Colorado Senate’s passage Monday of a bill regulating private child support collectors and lambasting her opponent for representing one of the “predatory” collectors the bill sought to keep in check.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4575269,00.html
**************
Gosh, where is COPols to headline this as “Deep divisions among Democrats” ??
;^)
You must be creating words in your mind that were never typed. The phrase ‘Bush caused Katrina’ was never posted by me, here are my words.
“the Republican Administration’s ignorance caused an entire city (and coast) to be flooded and damaged much more than was necessary.”
Ok, did you read that? Here it is again, just to make sure, I know you conservatives like to put words in people’s mouths (a la Fox News)
“the Republican Administration’s ignorance caused an entire city (and coast) to be flooded and damaged much more than was necessary.”
BMR, do you need me to repeat anything else for you? I know it takes awhile for you conservatives to catch on.
Dan Quayle ’08,
your funny. I can’t think of one credible Republican who has suggested that we make all immigrants felons. I think it is safe to say that illegal immigrants have already broken the law to come into the U.S. and they should be sent back to their native land. If they want to come into the U.S. legally that is fine with me.
As for the flooding of New Orleans, that is the trouble with you liberals, you think it is the government’s job to protect everyone from natural disasters. I don’t trust the government to do anything for me, regardless of who is in charge. If I build a house on the side of a volcano or in an area that is prone to flooding and my house is destroyed, then guess what – it is my fault for building there in the first place.
Believe me, the Democrats and liberals in the U.S are operating solely on hate right now. If they were not they would be offering their own plans for the U.S., but they aren’t doing that because they have so much built up hatred for George W. Bush. That’s why I still have my Bush ’04 bumper sticker on my Lexus, I am hoping to see a liberal get so mad their head pops off.
And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs.
I don’t where you’ve been living, nor do I care.
But bringing up the ‘Bush caused the Katrina disaster’ is too ludicrous for many more words about it.
What it does point to though, is that the whole discussion about the Electoral College is more about 1 president than the method by which he is elected.
To me the issue comes down to having the popular vote mean more than the electoral vote. The electoral system was just great for the days when horses and buggies carried ballots form one county to the next. But it is sorely outdated.
In Voyaguers case of California swaying the election because of a 1million vote surplus. First off the situation is highly unlinkely IMO, and still has to take into account the margin of votes from the other states. So sounds good to me!
Whoever wins the popular vote should win. Period. I cannot concieve of an argument that would persuade me to the contrary. Therefore I support Gordon’s initiative.
Tancredo hits “Newsweek”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017855/site/newsweek/
So you can tell me with a straight face that you think Lincoln would be proud that many Republicans are pushing to make immigrants felons and that the Republican Administration’s ignorance caused an entire city (and coast) to be flooded and damaged much more than was necessary?
************
Yep, there you have it folks – another ticket buyer in the “Bush let Katrina happen” sweepstakes.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously with that sort of thing?
I’m sorry BMR, did Bush handle that well, I’ve been living in a cave on Mars with the rest of my Republican croneys?
“In Voyaguers case of California swaying the election because of a 1million vote surplus. First off the situation is highly unlinkely IMO, and still has to take into account the margin of votes from the other states. So sounds good to me!”
-0-
incorrect math, Druid. Yes, it’s unlikely but if Nader carried California by a million votes and Hillary carried the other 49 states plus DC by an average of 15,000 votes each, then 1,000,000 minus 750,000 (50×15,000) produces a 250,000 plurality for Nader. He wins, even though he carried just one state. Hell, in Theory, you could win by carrying just Wyoming by 100,000 votes while the other guy carried the other 50 (ioncluding DC) by a thousand each. The math is impeccable but the result would do violence to the vision of the founding fathers, who emphatically sought to empower the states to pick a chief executive. I don’t expect to convince you, but I’ll sure try to stop this insensate scheme in its tracks.
You did indeed call me a liar, and you aren’t honorable enough to apologize for it. Thus I shall continue to call you stupid, because no intelligent person who actually read my post could have failed to understand it. To impugn my honor is in no way civil, and I will not forgive or forget unless you apologize.
By claiming knowingly make false statements, you called me a liar. Trying to weasel out of that now just confirms that you are indeed stupid. Apologize or drop the subject, you’re getting in deeper with every smarmy follow-on.
A,
So you can tell me with a straight face that you think Lincoln would be proud that many Republicans are pushing to make immigrants felons and that the Republican Administration’s ignorance caused an entire city (and coast) to be flooded and damaged much more than was necessary?
If the answer is yes then let me know what type of drugs you are taking, because anything that makes you that dilusional must be good.
By the way, it is not hate from the Democrats, it is anger that stems from the inequalities and seperations in our society that the Neo-Con agenda has created. We want nothing but love!
Voyageur,
My comments here are always civil–take note.
It appeared to me you tried to muddy the waters by saying you’d rather stick the with Constitution than scrap it. Implying that it would scrap the Constitution is false. The Constitution says:
Article I, section II is intact after the 12th and 23rd Amendments and is the law of the land. It says clearly Colorado can choose its electors by its own method.
I didn’t call you a liar, but I did and do say that your statement is a lie. But neither of us is stupid, so let’s agree to drop the name-calling, ok?
If it’s all the same with you, Mitch, I’ll stick to the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist papers against your man Kaplan, whoever he is.
And far from putting Colorado in the spotlight, the Gordon plan is just a caboose to the usual eastern, liberal suspects. The Washington Post’s David Broder wrote Sunday :
The question of how we elect a president is up for debate again,
with advocates of a majoritarian philosophy having invented a new
device for moving to a direct popular vote for the chief
executive.
Rather than going through the labors of amending the Constitution
to replace the Electoral College system with a national tally for
president, which has failed every time it has been attempted, they
have come up with a plan for bypassing the required two-thirds vote
in the House and Senate and the ratification by three-fourths of
the states.
Instead, the advocates propose that states with sufficient
electoral votes – 270 of the 538 – to comprise an electoral
majority enter into an interstate compact, pledging to give their
votes to the candidate receiving the largest number of popular
votes. That action could allow the legislatures of as few as 11
states to change the whole system of electing a president.
The proposal arrives with notable sponsorship. It was introduced
this winter by John Anderson, the former congressman from Illinois
and independent presidential candidate in 1980; former Sen. Birch
Bayh of Indiana, who sponsored a direct-election constitutional
amendment a generation ago; Chellie Pingree, the president of
Common Cause; and others drawn from both parties.
It has been endorsed by Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker and,
earlier this month, by the editorial page of The New York Times,
which called the Electoral College “an antidemocratic relic.” Rob
Richie, spokesman for the sponsoring organization, says bipartisan
bills have been introduced in California and Illinois, with
expressions of interest coming from many other states. He expects
it to be debated in almost every legislature next year.
…
It ignores the implications of a direct election plan for
two of the fundamental characteristics of the American scheme of
government, the federal system and the two-party system.
It is no accident that the Founders chose to elect the president by
counting votes in the states, since they wanted to emphasize that
this is a federal republic with sovereignty shared between the
states and Washington. Past efforts to abolish the Electoral
College have foundered on the objections of small states, which
worry that they would be ignored in the pursuit of giant voting
blocs in big-population centers. Have their claims no merit? As for
the party system, past proposals for direct election have snagged
on the question of allowing a simple plurality to win or requiring
a runoff if no candidate receives more than, say, 40 percent of the
vote.
Richie conceded in an interview that no runoff provision would be
possible under this scheme unless all 50 states agreed – an
unlikely eventuality.
…
That is why a change of this scale requires careful consideration –
something the amendment process provides and this mechanism is
designed to circumvent. A change of this sort should not be created
by 11 of the 50 state legislatures.
the Dems in Wyoming have had no impact on their political system, just as Republicans in CA. Why not allow them a voice?
– Mitch
***************
They DO have a voice – and nationally, it’s proportional to their population, which is precisely what the Electoral College provides.
If the POTUS were elected on a the popular vote, states like WY would never be heard from again from ANY party.
The EC gives parity to the less populated states.
your concern about California dominating the election is patently ridiculous!
Even if a candidate won EVERY SINGLE vote cast in California, New York, and Texas (our three biggest states), they would barely have 25% of the vote.
— Daily
*****************
Oh is it? The facts don’t support your theory.
Visit here and see how many votes were cast for POTUS in 2004 by each state, and see how many states (particularly in the West) by one state – California – which cast more than 12,000,000 votes for POTUS in 2004. There are total of SEVEN states that don’t even approach California’s 12 million: CO, ID, WY, MT, NV, UT, and even Texas combined don’t match California.
Dan Quayle ’08,
Oh, Danny boy…ignorance must be bliss.
You said:
“…the Lincoln Republicans would roll in their graves if they saw the policies of modern day Republicans to increase their own wealth and power while turning a blind eye to the underprivileged.”
If you understood Lincoln at all you would see that he was a great capitalist and that a free market was what would spur economic activity. Lincoln had a comprehensive knowledge of Adam Smith and his economic theories and supported the vast majority. Lincoln may roll over because of the number of Republicans who want to increase the budget, but he would be proud of our stance on the economy. he would also be proud that the Republican Party continues to have a strong spiritual faith, that Republicans support those who are less fortunate through community organizations, not through government programs.
Also, you put word in my mouth when you say, “
“As much as you may want the US to go back to being country where only white males have the power”
I never said that, so you can feel free to apologize. Your hatred is very apparent and I encourage you and all Democrats to come up with some fresh ideas, because, if hate is all you have to run on you will lose.
And I thought I was a troll. ‘a’ – you are the definition of troll.
Of course you’re not comparing immigrants murderers and drunk drivers. You’re CALLING them murderers and drunk drivers. Keep up the good dehumanizing work. FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!!
Why don’t you just go back to your mensa prep test; you’re obviously to intelligent for us poor peons to understand you.
“I was using what is called an analogy to show the flaw in your logic. I was not comparing illegal immigrants to murderers, even though hundreds, if not thousands of them are murderers. And I was not comparing illegals to drunk drivers, even though thousands of them are.”
_____________
Uuuuummmm. Ok then. Wow. I stand corrected. NOT!
a,
As my friends grandmother used to say,
“You are dead to me.”
“You don’t need a break. How about I buy you a beer? Coors, of course. ;^)”
Sure! DoTheMath I will take you up on that one! But don’t get cheap on me man. How about a nice thick, foamy, frosted pint of Guiness instead? Pant pant
Druid,
You poor thing, this kind of discourse is obviously beyond your level of thinking.
I was using what is called an analogy to show the flaw in your logic. I was not comparing illegal immigrants to murderers, even though hundreds, if not thousands of them are murderers. And I was not comparing illegals to drunk drivers, even though thousands of them are.
What I was trying to do, and this must simply be beyond you comprehension, was to show that if anyone used your logic of “well we can’t get rid of them all, so we should just legalize them” with any other crime they would be laughed out the door.
Bash Tancredo all you want kids, the bottom line is he was the lead story in Newsweek this week. Very favorable story at that talking about how he has the legitimacy to run for POTUS, but maybe not what it takes to win.
I don’t like the Gordon plan. Best I can tell, if the people of Colorado vote one way, but the nationwide popular vote goes the other way, then the Colorado Electoral votes would go with the nation… Against the popular vote here in the state. Sounds like we are giving away our votes.
“Tens of thousands of murders happen each year in the U.S. and we can’t stop them, so let’s tell the police to stop trying because we will never be able to stop all murders. Or how about this, we should stop enforcing drunk driving laws because there are just too many drunks on the road and we will never be able to catch them all.”
—-
Take a good long look at the above statement. This is how the anti-illegal immigrant folks talk about this. You are compare working immigrants to murders and drunk drivers? Typical. They work here and serve our society doing so.
Why don’t you let the “market” take care fo this one? How about you stop shopping or using places that employ them damn “illegals”?
How does sooner rather than later differ from what George Bush is saying?
During the Jay Marvin show Peggy and Ed both danced around the Question about the Murtha Resolution. Mike Feeley lost because he did the same hide and go seek on Iraq. Rick O’Donnell will also win unless one of the Democratic nominees gets a dosage of political courage.
Sooner rather than later. Kind of akin to Mario Cuomo’s line about peace being better than war because life is better than death.
So what. Where do Peggy and Ed stand on the War. Rubenstein does not have any chance at all of winning but at least we know where he stands
“Oh yeah! Well you are a big doo doo head! Gimme a break.”
You don’t need a break. How about I buy you a beer? Coors, of course.
;^)
Druid,
No political correctness for criminals here. They are illegal aliens. By definition they are criminals and should be deported. And Tancredo doesn’t want the illegals to be felons, the illegal immigrants are the ones committing the crime. He is just calling a spade a spade.
As for getting rid of them, there is no simple answer. Unfortunately because of non-enforcement of current laws and cities like Denver who are willing to allow illegals roam free, we do have a real problem. But the solution is not to throw up our hands and say “we give up”.
Additionally, using your logic we should stop pursuing all criminals. Tens of thousands of murders happen each year in the U.S. and we can’t stop them, so let’s tell the police to stop trying because we will never be able to stop all murders. Or how about this, we should stop enforcing drunk driving laws because there are just too many drunks on the road and we will never be able to catch them all.
As you can see druid, your logic is flawed.
BMR, you are forgetting to read the entire statement…there is a “more than necessary’ qualifier in there…
– DQ08
*******************
DQ 08, Magna Cum Laude Graduate of the Bill & Hillary Clinton School of Parsing.
Congratulations.
BMR, you want disproof? How about this: CA, NY, and IL (the three states with the most electoral votes) all vote Democratic already. They already effectively give every single one of their citizens’ votes to the Democratic Presidential candidate.
*****************
That doesn’t ‘disprove’ my earlier point that large, populous states such as CA, IL and NY trumping the vote of smaller, less populated states.
Look at my earlier post about the # of votes in CA vs. 14 western states.
The EC equalizes that.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
Thanks for the recognition BMR. As for ‘a’ (I love the creativity in the name too, way to go above and beyond)
“And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs” That seems to imply that because you are conservative, you don’t do drugs…I don’t think I am ‘spinning that’ am I?
And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs” That seems to imply that because you are conservative, you don’t do drugs…I don’t think I am ‘spinning that’ am I?
– DQ 08
***************
It’s difficult to know if you’re spinning due to your own choice of pharmaceuticals, or simply spinning due to a twisted politcal ideology.
Either way, I never used the statement to which you’ve attributed to me.
Read. Focus. Think. Reply.
It’s pretty easy, really. But if you leave out 1 or more steps, (as you have in this case) you look like a damned fool.
My 2 cents worth: yes, the idea of a popular vote is appealing BUT a major drawback for me is the potential for smaller or less populated states to get screwed here.
I really like PR’s idea of sending electors proportional to their votes–gives everybody’s vote equal weight with no advantage to either party. I realize it would require a constitutional amendment and there doesn’t seem to be much stomach for that in Congress right now. Considering that it seems the most fair of options, I’m not sure why that is.
Preventing the marginalization of smaller states/less populated larger states votes was the main reason the founders came up with the electoral system. I don’t see how that would be less of a problem today so I’m afraid I’m not convinced to support the interstate compact.
Once again BMR, you read the first 2 words and thought you knew it all again…I attributed that statement to ‘a’
Here is my statement again, I’ll just start posting everything twice so the conservatives have a fair chance at making an intelligent response:
…
As for ‘a’ (I love the creativity in the name too, way to go above and beyond)
“And, remember I am a conservative, I don’t do drugs” That seems to imply that because you are conservative, you don’t do drugs…I don’t think I am ‘spinning that’ am I?
One thing’s for certain, though, having read through these posts…. it’s much easier to understand why liberals admitted to having so many problems with relatively simple voting procedures in Florida in 2000.
Beyond that, I’m not licensed to practice psychiatry, and wouldn’t want to run afoul of the law doing so.
Like I said, I’m not licensed to practice psychiatry…
… from a purely non-professional, though, you’re just plain spinning. For whatever reason.
Nice ‘swiftboat veterans’ defense…you know the one, where you find your weakness (in your case ability to read postings accurately and respond) and turn it against the other side’s stregth (intelligent and accurate responses to mundane Neo-Con thought) and repeat until people start to believe your side. Kudos BMR
“Tancredo has NOT suggested that we make “all immigrants felons”, as “a” stated.”
Oh ok, you got me there. He only wants to make 11 million undocumented workers felons.
Geesh.
Quote I HAD to share:
“At least in Vietnam Bush had an exit strategy.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Let’s see….
Clinton carries NY, IL, CA but losses TX and wins 1992 & 1996.
Carter carries TX, NY & FL but lose CA and IL and still wins 1976.
Gore and Kerry carries CA, IL AND NY but lose in 2000 and 2004.
Now, non-swing states are disenfranchised?
Actually, Druid, since the Simpson Mazzoli immigration reform law of 1987 , most illegal immigrants in this country have had documents, so your term “undocumented workers” , while politically correct, is simply untrue. Unfortunately, those documents, for the most part, are forged. And, yes, that IS a crime.
If 11 million people are in this country in defiance of our laws, then they clearly are illegal immigrants. By definition. By no means are they all workers, however. So the term illegal immigrants is more accurate and less value laden than your foolish euphemism “undocumented workers.”
“Let’s see….
Clinton carries NY, IL, CA but losses TX and wins 1992 & 1996.
Carter carries TX, NY & FL but lose CA and IL and still wins 1976.
Gore and Kerry carries CA, IL AND NY but lose in 2000 and 2004.
Now, non-swing states are disenfranchised?”
Yep.
Ok fine, DoTheMath, lets do it your way. How fo you want get rid of all them pesky “illegal felon criminal terrorist” types.
We don’t have a MILITARY capable of deporting all 11 million of them!
Muderers are felons. Rapists are felons. Child molestors are felons.
Construction workers, orchard harvesters, hotel workers, cab drivers ETC are NOT FELONS.
“Muderers are felons. Rapists are felons. Child molestors are felons. “
************
Yep, and the other prong of change offered by Dems is to give felons the right to vote.
Can anyone provide a link to any comment that Ed Perlmutter or Peggy Lamm has made about changing the course of US Policy in Iraq. I bet they both run for even deeper cover now that Senator Salazar has signed up with Georgie Bush. It seems that all three major candidates inCD7 — Lamm, Perlmutter and O’Donnell will never publicly say anything critical of President Bush and the War In Iraq.
By the way I still wondering when Pols will add Curtis Imrie to the CD 5 line up?
?????????
So when the country has only a 51% (approx) voter turn out for the general election that again is spelled disenfranchised? I call that voter apathy. And so the crux is on..
1.) eligible voters to make their vote count in their state (i.e. how the ‘disenfranchized’ citizens of Arkansas and Tenn. said ‘yes’ to Clinton and ‘no’ to Gore and Kerry.
2.) political parties to present the states with electable candidates.
You seem unusually unclear in your thinking today, Druid. Anyone who commits a felony is a … duh… felon.
Not all crimes are felonies, however. To say that immigrants who break the law to get here are illegal immigrants is accurate to the point of tautology. You seem to imply that we should reward them for breaking the law by giving them all new BMWs and 50 seats in the electoral college. My inclination is to lean toward the president’s proposal of a guest worker program. As to amnesty, it’s a question of what you mean. Obviously, I think the illegal aliens already here, if they have not committed other crimes, such as the ones even you apparently frown upon, should be allowed to seek guest worker status. I would forever ban them from becoming citizens, however. To reward lawbreakers with citizenship and the right to vote, thus giving them the right to govern those who obey the law, is obscene. Strip that out and Kennedy/McCain/Bush are groping toward an honorable compromise. The House is right in that we do need to build and police a defensible border. But search your fevered mind and try to find where in my post I suggested deporting them en masse. That would be justfiable legally but costly economically. But I certainly would not reward their lawbreaking with citizenship…ever. Their children, if born here, are automatically citizens, and that’s as it should be. No child is responsible for his parents … or vice versa, which should provide a considerable degree of relief for your mother!
Can anyone provide a link to any comment that Ed Perlmutter or Peggy Lamm has made about changing the course of US Policy in Iraq.
…………
A Ms. Poindexter (who is on Lamm’s staff, if I have that right) provided a statement re: Lamm’s take on Iraq on this forum just a couple of days ago. I don’t remember which thread, though, but it was in the past 2 or 3 days.
DoTheMath,
“My inclination is to lean toward the president’s proposal of a guest worker program.”
I agree with Bush (and hence with you) on this one. I plan on an hour of self-flagelation tonight because of it. 😀
“No child is responsible for his parents … or vice versa, which should provide a considerable degree of relief for your mother!”
Oh yeah! Well you are a big doo doo head! Gimme a break.
Can anyone provide a link to any comment that Ed Perlmutter or Peggy Lamm has made about changing the course of US Policy in Iraq.
— A Challenge
Here you go, Challenge:
Note that Ms. Poindexter indicates that Peggy has said this “over and over again”. I guess that means that Peggy REALLY means it…
**********************
FYI, here’s what Peggy says, and has been saying over and over again, about Iraq:
“I believe we must implement an exit strategy and begin to redeploy our troops. In the meantime, we must fulfill our responsibility to the men and women who are serving in Iraq and ensure they have the best equipment available, as well as access to services when they return to the United States.”
If you listened to the Jay Marvin show, you know that Peggy believes that President Bush misled us into the war, and that it’s an untenable situation that we must get out of sooner rather than later.
Feel free to direct any future questions you have about policy positions to the campaign (campaign@peggylammforcongress.com); much more likely that I’ll see your questions and answer them.
Kathryn Poindexter
Peggy Lamm for Congress
From this thread:
http://coloradopols.com/archives/2006/03/good_week_for_p.html#comments
My recollection is that the Framers in part created the Electoral College as a way to minimize the damage Southern slaveowners could do towards the selection of leaders.
****************
Close, but it was not an issue re: slavery, but more of a distrust of a centralized government and politicians in general.
More here: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Which states, in part:
A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a “favorite son” from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
***************
Imagine that – the smaller state were worried about the larger states. Now where have I heard that before? Hmmm….
For all the simpletons in the crowd (Trollie and Druid), I will explain with different analogy:
Using Druid’s flawed logic we can assume the following:
There a millions of Americans who speed on a daily basis. The police will never be able to stop all speeders, so the police should just make speeding legal and stop worrying about trying to catch people who speed.
There, does that make all of the politically correct folks happy? In the future I will remember that Druid and crew don’t know what an analogy is.
a?nal?o?gy noun. – Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
So, you’re comparing illegal immigration to speeding. Speeding is a misdemeanor. Sorry – you were using another anology. Maybe you should avoid analogies.
I don’t think simply legalizing all illegal immigrants is the answer. But trying to start from scratch by deporting every illegal immigrant in this country is extremely unrealistic, as would be attempting to incarcerate every one of them.
How about fining them, legalizing them (guest worker) and finally taxing them. You know, this isn’t the type of issue you can fix in one or two sentences. I also don’t think this is a huge priority in our country right now. I wonder who is making it such a huge priority?
And, by the way, you are a pompous ‘a’.
Yes A,
I think they should make speeding legal, that has been your best idea all day.
Not sure if I like Gordon’s electoral plan. I’m far from sold on it. I thought Amendment 36 was the way to go – but we know how that went.
Guiness it is, Druid.
Trollpig, I hate to tell you this, but illegal immigration is also what you call a misdemeanor, so it is directly comparable with speeding. Actually, srictly speaking, I don’t think either of them is even a misdemeanor, as opposed to a civil offense.
Misdemeanors are criminal violations, just less serious than felonies. I don’t think any number of speeding violations would land you in jail, any more than simply being an illegal immigrant would. Speeding can get you a fine. It can also cost you your drivers license. Being an illegal immigrant can get you deported, it won’t get you a prison term.
That said, the catch ’em/fine ’em/ and give ’em guest worker visas if they haven’t committed other crimes while here is probably the first step toward rationalizing a situation that has festered out of control. I would never, however, allow any illegal immigrant to become a citizen. They forever forfeited that opportunity when they entered here illegally.
Boy oh boy… what a battle of the egos
DoTheMath,
Uhm – yeah, that’s what I said. It’s a misdemeanor. And you are correct, you don’t go to jail for speeding.
Some folks would have illegal immigration turned into a felony, hence the incarceration comment.
As for not allowing them to become citizens, we’ll just disagree. I’d compare that to permanently losing your license for speeding.
Ooops – sorry, another a?nal?o?gy for you there ‘a’.
With respect to the Gordon plan and its fidelity or lack thereof to the Framers’ vision, I’m no historian, but isn’t there some relevant historical context we’re missing here? My recollection is that the Framers in part created the Electoral College as a way to minimize the damage Southern slaveowners could do towards the selection of leaders. I’m pretty fond of the Framers and their reasoning, but if part of their reasoning is based on a historical artifact, it holds less weight for me. It seems to me that states don’t have homogeneous identities nearly as much as they did 200 years ago, the slavery issue aside. I’m just not sure the Electoral Model college fits a country where lots of people work in one state and live in another, and people in cities on both coasts have more in common with each other, as do people in small towns throughout the country, etc.
I agree. But bringing up the dissolution of the electoral college really seems to get some people’s dander up.
Without even reading a single one of these posts today I have concluded that there are far too many people who have no life.
Not to drive the distinction into the ground, trollpig, but you still fail to grasp the difference between a misdemeanor and a civil offense. A misdemeanor is a crime and you can go to jail for it. A civil offense means basically that you can lose certain privileges and or pay a fine but you don’t go to jail. Speeding is NOT a misdemeanor and neither is illegally entering this country or overstaying a visa. Forging documents may be a misdemeanor, however. Some bills in Congress would make illegal entry a felony. But you really should grasp the difference between criminal offenses, whatever their severity, and civil ones. When I said illegal immigration is what “YOU CALL” a misdemeanor, that was only a set up to my gently correcting you on that point, it’s not a criminal offense at all. Until you grasp this distinction, I’ll make you sip near beer when Druid and I gather to swill down his Guiness and my Coors.
Ah – get a life, you are correct! Time for another drink.
My revised monikor says it all, Friend Trollpig!
Holtzman bio leaves out details on business
The Associated Press
DENVER – According to his campaign biography, Republican gubernatorial candidate Marc Holtzman served as executive director of President Reagan’s grass-roots Citizens for America organization, then left the country in the late 1980s “to help the formerly enslaved nations of the Warsaw Pact transition from communism to free-market economies.”
What he doesn’t mention, according to records obtained by The Associated Press, is that he served as president of Jewelcor Jewelers and Distributors from October 1988 to September 1989 _ a company that declared bankruptcy 13 months later, leaving about 200 people without jobs.
Holtzman said he is not trying to hide anything and was proud of his work as president of what he called a major company. He said he focused his gubernatorial biography on his public service and other major accomplishments relevant to the governor’s race.
“I didn’t list everything in my biography that I’ve done in my life, I listed the highlights,” he said in an interview Wednesday.
Other questions have surfaced about Holtzman’s work in the private sector. Last fall, the AP disclosed that a government-backed venture in Eastern Europe in which he was a key player was the target of a 1993 congressional inquiry that concluded his company had management problems and that Holtzman and his partners were prepaid lucrative salaries to avoid paying higher taxes.
Holtzman disputed the findings and suggested he was the victim of a partisan witch hunt.
According to records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Jewelcor Jewelers and Distributors was based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and was a subsidiary of a parent company, Jewelcor. The parent focused on the sale of jewelry and general merchandise, the publication of merchandise catalogs, the distribution of name-brand watches, and high-speed printing and graphic arts; the subsidiary focused on catalog showrooms.
According to the AP’s research, Holtzman listed his presidency of Jewelcor Jewelers and Distributors on President Reagan’s White House calendar for Aug. 12, 1988, in his biography for his business buddies at the prestigious World Forum and in editions of Who’s Who.
Yet the honorific did not make the gubernatorial biography. A spokesman for fellow GOP candidate Bob Beauprez declined comment, while Democratic candidate Bill Ritter did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Holtzman said he was 27 at the time his father, Seymour Holtzman, brought him on board to shut down the catalog division.
Holtzman said the niche market for catalog companies was being wiped out by corporate giants like Wal-Mart that focused on quality products and low prices, and it was his job to close about two dozen showrooms in Texas, California and the mid-Atlantic states.
“Every time we closed a store, people were compensated with severance pay. We helped them retool their resumes. As difficult as some of these things were to do, it was done with compassion,” Holtzman said.
Independent pollster Floyd Ciruli of Denver said gaps in resumes are often a source of political controversy and it’s not surprising that Holtzman left out the Jewelcor details on his gubernatorial biography.
“Marc is running on the fact that he’s a job provider and that he’s going to provide economic development. Obviously this is something he’ll have to explain,” Ciruli said.
Contacted in Switzerland, Holtzman’s former attorney, Alex J. Nobile, said Holtzman turned the company over to his father in September 1989 as Holtzman’s job was nearing an end.
Holtzman said he left the company after about 13 months in good financial shape.
According to court records, in 1990 the parent company Jewelcor filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, Pa., after Seymour Holtzman got into a battle with the First National Bank of Boston, which had loaned the company $105 million.
Joseph Kociubes, an attorney for First National, said Holtzman’s father refused to work with the bank and forced the parent company into bankruptcy reorganization, along with Gruen Marketing, a major watch manufacturer and other smaller companies.
“Rather than working with the bank to structure a workout, he decided to go to war,” Kociubes said. About 2,000 people lost their jobs and the bank lost about $70 million.
Seymour Holtzman said his son was not involved in the bankruptcy and left 13 months before the case went to court. He said he would only answer other questions in writing.
Marc Holtzman said only that it was a battle between his father and banks that forced it into bankruptcy.
Kociubes said Marc Holtzman was not to blame for what happened after he left the company.
“The son shouldn’t be held responsible for the sins of the father,” Kociubes said.
Records show Holtzman was also president of Jewelcor Travel in 1988 and president of the Holtzman and Associates public affairs firm in Washington from 1986 to 1988, according to his biography in Who’s Who. The travel company was not involved in the bankruptcy.
according to rocky article and state audit, looks like more contract problems for the state. wonder if phase line is involved in any of those contracts?
Here’s your hero Gecko and Iron Mike:
Bush said today: “Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.”
According to you two, Americans should welcome more killing, more incometence, more pollution, more lying, more war, more waste of our tax dollars, more corruption, more graft, more greed, more hate, more loss of prestige in the world, more debt, more focusing on minor issues…………
If you want to lead an intellectual discourse, please do so. ROFL
Are you sure Gecko?
He had those hard core rebuttals like “Assine statement”, “….completely asleep at the wheel!!” and my favorite “You’re a f*&$&^%%# moron”.
Such intellectual discourse from Sirrah Robin.
Look at this, a gang of CONS bulling on the minority. Nothing new there. Is there something in your ideology that forces you to discriminate, segregate and hate upon those that are not the same as you?
Sir Robin, you are not alone since Colorado is progression toward a shade of blue (and according to most recent polling) the majority of the US is turning its views on this corrupt way of governing that has been “enforced” upon us.
You forgot to rebut the liberal ideals I listed.
Can’t do it can you Robin the Socialist.
Actually that list could be quite longer but I only posted a brief statement.
Oh yeah, flaming liberal idiot………
You sound like a little kid that can’t get his way. Can you say temper tantrum………….
Have another box of wine, eh? You’ll feel better.
P.S.-
It’s fascinating to see who you admire and associate with.
Yeah, unlike Lone Wolf Sir Robin who associates with no one!
Ha, ha!
I will happily agree with our motorcycle riding colleague. Well said my friend.
The Conservative Republican’s control the House, Senate and executive branch…..now listen Gecko:
$6.592 trillion: Federal debt on June 26, 2003.
$8.364 trillion: Federal debt today.
“Ask for nothing”!!!!! Stupid statement. Your “conservatives are giving away the farm.
“Work for a living” Assine statement.
?How do you say revolving door in Japanese?? Former Senator Howard Baker (R-TN), the U.S. Ambassador to Japan until last year, has already registered as a lobbyist for Toshiba Corporation.
What is Baker producing except graft, greed and his own self-interest? Is he working for America?
“Expect nothing”….completely asleep at the wheel!!
Jack Abramoff sentenced to five years, 10 months in prison by a federal judge, the AP reports. ?The sentence won?t start immediately so [he and Adam Kidan] can continue cooperating in a Washington corruption investigation and a Florida probe into the murder of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos ?Gus? Boulis.? The sentence was the minimum required under his plea agreement in the SunCruz case.
That’s because he’s going to save his ass by squeeling on his Republican friewnds who EXPECTED largess for their poor representation of their districts. Liars, greedy pigs, and utterly lousy public servants. Get a life Gecko! You’re a flaming idiot!
Show me the light we’re to follow with the Republicans IN CONTROL! Show me the light in Iraq! Show me the light with global warming. Show me the light, indeed. You’re a f*&$&^%%# moron.
Oh I don’t know about that, ‘not quite’.
I think my buddies Voyageur, BMR, Iron Mike, Go Raiders, a, etc did a valiant job of pushing the conservative agenda, as apposed to the “give the farm away” liberal way of thinking.
Again…..
Liberal=
* Promote as many government welfare programs as possible so the lazy don’t have to work
* Take from those that have and give to those that (again) are too lazy to work
* Tax everything that moves, don’t move, is dead, is alive, is from another planet, etc
* Tax some more
Conservative=
* Work for a living
* Ask for nothing
* Expect nothing
* Make as much money as possible and keep as much as possible
* Promote least amount of government as possible
* Promote self responsibility
Show me where a liberal agenda is the light to follow.
Another bit from the fec.gov site:
Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State’s electoral votes or none of that State’s electoral votes.
And since ethnic minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those States with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number. The same principle applies to other special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists, and so forth.
It is because of this “leverage effect” that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election of the president would therefore actually damage minority interests since their votes would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
That’s truly the case, BMR, and the best argument for keeping the electoral college. Most minority leaders oppose the popular vote plan. Jews are a very small block nationwide but they can be decisive in New York or Florida. Likewise, black voters would have little popular vote clout but now, any politician who ignores them is dead meat. I’ve seen presidential candiedates stop in Grand Junction. That would never happen in a popular vote election. But Colorado West can swing a close race and with it deliver our 9 electoral votes. It is the weak and powerless who have the most to lose if we scrap the constitutionally inspired electoral college.
Wow, thanks for that little tidbit there GoRVing… Pretty familiar story for anyone who has written more checks than they have cashed.
If you’re trying to tell us Holtzman grew up in the real world of business where banks just can’t get away with anything, as opposed to Beauprez’s recipe for making money where you sell the farm that has been in the family for generation so the world can have another golf course. Oh yeah, and then open a bank.
I see, Beauprez was all in arms because the Holtzman clan took on a bank! How dare he! HA, HA!
By the way, I’m golfing with the kids this week… Where is the Beauprez family golf course? Is it any good?
Man I sure missed out on some great arguements today. Stupid work just gets in the way.
But after reading these 124 or so posts I claim:
Conservatives: 70
Liberals: 0
Game
Gecko,
ENRO accounting does not qualify as legitimate calculation here.
Since the Neo-Cons got off the point at every chance possible with disinformation, personality attacks and at last resort Clinton bashing, Democrats win. Since the Republicans have no concept of personal responsibilty (as I sorted through all the Bull Shit!) and they can only blame, blame, blame:
128 (+ this post)
1 (think of it as an E for effort for your own creativity)
P.S. Gordon?s bill is a great idea!
Voyageur, I agree with your description of how the founders envisioned states and electors would use the power granted them by the constitution. Problem is, the system as it exists today no longer looks remotely as you described. Electors don’t get together and figure out who they think the best candidate is, they vote as a group with 50.1% of the voters of their state, under a party system that was anathema to at least many of the framers. I’m not sure this proposed compact is much more of a radical deviation than we already have. The radical deviation was allowing the popular vote to control, even if on a by-state basis. Either way, each state would cast the number of electoral votes given them by the constitution, and the states who between them control a majority of the electors dictate the outcome.
That said, I still have doubts about its workability. Compacts are generally enforceable, but the wrinkle is that the constitution expressly says that state legislatures get to chose how that state selects its electors. Its not clear to me that state legislatures can, in effect, give up that expressly granted right by entering into a compact which takes away their ability in the future to determine how electors are selected.
We were just talking.
About cats actually.
Honest.
Geez guys,
All I ask is that when you two decide to kiss and make up, please take it in the other room.
Raiders
We can’t go in the other room just now, Go Raiders. Iron Mike is in there, with your wife…
Voyageur,
Calling someone a liar goes like this:
“You’re a liar.“
I never said that. I asked you to stop spreading the lie that future SoS Ken Gordon’s electoral college proposal “scraps the Constitution.”
(If you’ve never had kids nor been exposed to negotiation or conflict management methods, you may not appreciate the semantic difference between criticizing someone’s actions and criticizing them directly.)
Regardless, I’m sorry. And yes I had forgotten your first comment.
None of us is perfect, and the issues we discuss are worth being passionate about. But I try hard not to make things personal, and when I fail at that please let me know. In turn, I’d ask you again to stop the name-calling.
Actually, Beaupreznit, the way you call somebody a liar is to say that what he is saying is a lie.
Lies are spoken, or written, by liars, that’s the definition of a liar. I’m not some four-year-old you can patronize by saying that I’m writing lies but I shouldn’t take that insult to my integrity personally. It doesn’t get any more personal than calling me a liar.
As to Gordon’s proposal, it may be a clever way to outwit the Constitution’s requirement that three fourths of the states must ratify an amendment…it would let just 11 states, the largest, gut the provision. Yes, that’s scrapping the constitution. That’s no lie, it’s an obvious fact or, at worst, an opinion.
Nonetheless, I accept your apology and am willing to call an end to this unfortunate episode.
Uh guys,
How many of us welcome more incometence?
Not sure what that is, though it does sound to me like more liberal BS.
Oh, and my man Geckop, you forgot one thing:
Liberal = Whiner
Actually, that was a typo, Go Raiders. Sir Robin meant to say he welcomed more “incontinence.”
Why not, that’s his whole blogging style 😉
Might I suggest trying Depends?
Yeah $4 billion in private cobtracts… How much was Ref C supposed to raise again? $3.7 billion? Great.
Thanks for making us pay to make your friends rich GOV Bill.
OK Voyager, I really expected better of you than that lame attempt.
Now speaking of Iron Mike, knowing that he is a good God Fearing, Christian Republican, I know that I have nothing to worry about.
If he was a Democrat, I would have to be watching the press conferences closely as he tries to spin his way out of it.