Big Day for Californians

[mofosaurus]

Adder,

Is it pretty the planet your from?

:boozer:

Remember the man in the white coat is your friend :banana:

Next time it may be a good idea to take the WHOLE pill
:dunce:

 

[wrongkey]

mofosaurus once bubbled...
JAW has another president taken office with a minoirty of the popular vote?

I don't think so, because prior to Bush Jr. Kennedy's win was only by 20,000 popular votes. That was the closest in the last 150 years.

Everybody knows the EC elects the president but when the president loses the popular vote it kinda leaves a bad taste in your mouth

The question wasn't directed to me, but yep, it's happened before.

John Quincy Adams won the 1824 election, although Andrew Jackson received more popular and electoral votes than anybody else. He failed to get a majority, though, and after Adams cut a deal with the third place finisher, Adams was elected by Congress, as provided by the Constitution.

Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden in the 1876 election and won in the electoral college by one vote.

Then President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in the 1888 election, but lost in the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison.

 

[norcaldiver]

I'm all for for the recall BUT:

If you didn't vote in the last election, you don't get to vote now. If you weren't on the ballot in the last election, you don't get to be on the ballot now.

I think that's fair.

I'm pretty confident the recall will go down in flames with all that money spent on it. 15 million voters, 7.7 mil votes last time, the expect 10 million this time. The recall only need 2 million??(I think). That means that 13 million voters either didn't care or wouldn't sign the petition.
I will really be surprised if it's even close.

 

[zeN||]

YOU'RE OUTTA HERE! That Bastod deserves to be thrown out of town for the car tax alone, the only position he ever had was the one he thought would/will elect him, once again Californians are faced with an election where we vote AGAINST someone, because we really don't have real choices, but we can send a message that says we won't accept outrageous (car tax tripled overnite) taxation, and will not accept goverment by bribery (nor will we endorse a Lt. Gov who doesn't seem to know that he was elected by the U.S. of America, not Vincent Fox) -Arnold isn't qualified but at least he will shake things up, and that is worth going to the polls for zeN||


cc Our constitution outlines election policy, and the previous prez election was constitutional, presided over by the SC, if we did elect candidates by pop vote it would place all the power in urban centers i.e. the big cities, and rural constituents would be pawns on the chessboard

 

[JustAddWater]

And you can lump Motor Voter registration, and legal driver's license for illegal aliens with the car tax.

 

[drbill]

No question in my mind that Davis is not the preferred candidate. However, zeN||, in his defense I believe the car tax increases were mandated when the original reductions were implemented. If the State could not afford to write a check to the counties for certain expenses, the tax was legally required to increase to allow the State to do so. You can't hold Davis responsible for something that was mandated under a previous (and Republican) administration.

Wrongkey- thanks for the historical information. I knew there were past examples but was too busy editing whale video footage to research it.

Adder70- you correct in identifying lying under oath as Clinton's error. I wish George W. were under oath every day of his presidency. I'm sure we'd have grounds to impeach him.

Mofosaurus- did you expect any more of Yale (rhymes with jail)? Of course my alma mater has its share of unworthies such as my classmate Elliot Abrams who first surfaced during Iran-Contra and is now once again in the spotlight over the outing of the CIA agent.

Dr. Bill

 

[plsdiver4377]

zeN|| once bubbled...
cc Our constitution outlines election policy, and the previous prez election was constitutional, presided over by the SC, if we did elect candidates by pop vote it would place all the power in urban centers i.e. the big cities, and rural constituents would be pawns on the chessboard

The reasoning behind the EC does not apply in todays United States. The original reasoning of applying equal representation in the voting process was because of the travel distances required for voting, as well as the fact the urban areas would get more exposure to the candidates in question.

With the near instantaneous availability of news (candidates campaigns) through the media along with the near universal availability of voting stations (along with absentee ballots) makes the EC unnecessay. Not only that but many of the states require that if a candidate wins for example, 7 of 13 EC precincts then the entire state goes with 'majority' which effectively defines many of the 'popular' votes as meaningless.

Therefor do away with the EC and people can honestly say that the President was elected by the people for the people.

 

[Arnaud]

I wonder how long this thread will remain open. Anyway, IMHO a recall is a bad idea, regardless of who's in charge.

It's one thing to have an impeachment procedure to remove an appointed or elected officials because of crimes that are committed during his/her tenure.

It's another thing to remove someone from power just because his/her popularity went down since the last election. If the same procedure were available for the President, most of them would probably never finish their term. This would greatly weaken the institution. The same should be true for any other elected position.

 

[Karl_in_Calif]

you are probably right.

 

[JustAddWater]

Consider this: the combined population of Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Oregon, and Nevada is less than the population of New York City. Should the concerns and interests of one city effect the same influence as these six states in a majority vote?
P.S. I really do love New York though.