Day 11 of the writing challenge and I've fallen behind. I blame work. Work is getting too intrusive to my blogging life. What if I didn't have to work? Wouldn't that be nice. There is a lot of what ifs I could talk about.
What if 9/11 never happened? Would the election stealing tyrant Bush have been re-elected?
Let's go a little further back.
What if JFK was never assassinated? Stephen King wrote a thousand page book about it. It is speculative fiction. 11/23/63 was about the main character going back in time through some strange time portal. He stops the assassination. He returns to the future and finds the USA in complete shambles. Is it possible that having Kennedy dead was in the best interest for the USA? Let's go a little further back.
What if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor? Other than the lives being saved, there may have been people walking the Earth today who could have had the cure for cancer. Or someone worst than Hitler may have been born. Same for the Holocaust. How many great people would have lived and done wondrous things? But that's not the what-ifs I want to reflect upon.
What if 9/11 never happened? Would the election stealing tyrant Bush have been re-elected?
Let's go a little further back.
What if JFK was never assassinated? Stephen King wrote a thousand page book about it. It is speculative fiction. 11/23/63 was about the main character going back in time through some strange time portal. He stops the assassination. He returns to the future and finds the USA in complete shambles. Is it possible that having Kennedy dead was in the best interest for the USA? Let's go a little further back.
What if the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor? Other than the lives being saved, there may have been people walking the Earth today who could have had the cure for cancer. Or someone worst than Hitler may have been born. Same for the Holocaust. How many great people would have lived and done wondrous things? But that's not the what-ifs I want to reflect upon.
What if the Electoral College never existed?
The United States Electoral College is the institution that officially elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. The President and Vice President are not elected directly by the voters. Instead, they are elected by "electors" who are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis. Electors are apportioned to each state and the District of Columbia, but not to territorial possessions of the United States, such as Puerto Rico and Guam. (Wikipedia)
The Electoral College has been around since 1787. It has not been without its controversy. In the beginning Congress was tasked to elect the President. Over the 200 plus years the process has been changed to iron out issues and loopholes. Throughout American political history there have been challenges to this process. Some elections that tested the Electoral College's resiliency follow.
There had been four times in election history where the winner did not receive the majority of popular votes, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
The election of 1800 was tied in Congress (remember popular vote of the people was discounted) and as outlined in the Constitution the election was decided by the House of Representatives with Jefferson defeating Burr on the 36th ballot by Alexander Hamilton's throwing his vote to Jefferson because he didn't like Burr personally. (Hmmm... possibly the reason for their duel, you think?)
The election of 1824 John Quincy Adams was elected President after the election was decided by the House of Representatives in what was termed the Corrupt Bargain. The previous years had seen a one-party government in the United States, as the Federalist Party dissolved, leaving only the Democratic-Republican Party as a national political entity. In this election, the Democratic-Republican Party splintered as four separate candidates sought the presidency. This process did not yet lead to formal party organization, but later, the faction led by Andrew Jackson would evolve into the modern Democratic Party, while the factions led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay would become the National Republican Party (no relation to the current Republican Party) and then the Whig Party.
The presidential election of 1824 is notable for being the only election since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have been decided by the House of Representatives. Adams defeated Jackson even though Jackson had initially won the most electoral votes. Jackson and his followers accused Adams and Clay of striking a "corrupt bargain". The Jacksonians would campaign on this claim for the next four years, ultimately attaining Jackson's victory in the Adams-Jackson rematch in 1828.
The election of 1876 was indisputably an instance in which the winner of the popular vote did not also win the vote in the Electoral College. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by more than 3 percent nationwide over Rutherford B. Hayes and seemed for a time to have won the vote of the Electoral College as well. There were several oddities at play in this election. There were several disputed slates of electors.(U.S. Election Assistance Commission)
If it went to the House, Tilden most likely would have won if the electors were not counted. Instead a commission of 15 consisting of members of Congress and the Supreme Court was formed and through some slick political shenanigans Hayes was declared the winner, 8-7.
The election of 1888 saw Grover Cleveland of New York, the incumbent president and a Democrat, try to secure a second term against the Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison, a former U.S. Senator from Indiana. The economy was prosperous and the nation was at peace, but Cleveland lost re-election in the Electoral College, even though he won a plurality of the popular vote by a narrow margin. This election was notable for being the third of four U.S. presidential elections in which the winner did not win the popular vote. Had Cleveland won, he would have been the first president to been elected to 3 terms. Instead he gets to be known as being two Presidents, the 22nd and 24th. Also, he's buried in Princeton, New Jersey. (Day trip and a stop at Chuck's for Buffalo Wings.)
This graphic demonstrates how the winner of the popular vote can still lose in a hypothetical electoral college system.
Another interesting fact was the 1960 election. Many Republicans believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy's running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine. These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election, and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states. Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy's victory in Illinois. (Wikipedia). Let's take this a step further. If Nixon was awarded the election, would he have escalated our involvement in Vietnam like Johnson did? Let's say he won a second term, who would have been the Republican candidate in 1968? Goldwater? I shiver with the thought. It would have been as bad as if McCain had defeated Obama.
The 2000 election debacle still irritates many Americans, not the ass-clowns who voted for Mr. Big Clown. (Refer to yesterday's blog to get the reference.). Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush. Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state, Tennessee, which both he and his father had represented in the Senate, making him the first major-party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. Bush lost in Connecticut, the state of his birth. (Losers all around.)
Now what is disturbing is that shit state of Florida and its bible thumping bigoted political machine that got away with rigging that election. That's right. I'm calling it rigging. Bush supposedly won that state, a winner-takes-all state, by 537 votes. (48 states have winner-takes-all electoral votes, Maine and Nebraska do not. They place a pointy hat on the Governor's head and wait for the hat to announce the winner... or something like that.) We can't confirm if this was true, because in the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court they stopped the recount. That's 25 electoral votes had they gone to Gore would have made him the overwhelming victor. Instead, the imposter President received the minimum to win plus 1 vote. Thanks, Florida, and especially this bitch.
.jpg)
Regardless of who won, I believe the 9/11 tragedy would have happened. However, the aftermath may have been handled differently. We probably would not still have troops in the Middle East today. We wouldn't have some of our constitutional rights being infringed and some of the environmental issues Gore promoted might have been fruitful to this country and the environment.
Opponents of the Electoral College claim that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is that the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle. (Wikipedia)
Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.(Wikipedia)
There are several arguments for and against, but nothing can be proven. It's all speculation. I believe if people really thought their vote could make a difference, there would be better voter turnout. I feel in a very close race, the chance remains that the person the people want - won't be the person the people get.
Next time: Day 12 - My 5 Blessings
The Electoral College has been around since 1787. It has not been without its controversy. In the beginning Congress was tasked to elect the President. Over the 200 plus years the process has been changed to iron out issues and loopholes. Throughout American political history there have been challenges to this process. Some elections that tested the Electoral College's resiliency follow.
There had been four times in election history where the winner did not receive the majority of popular votes, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
The election of 1800 was tied in Congress (remember popular vote of the people was discounted) and as outlined in the Constitution the election was decided by the House of Representatives with Jefferson defeating Burr on the 36th ballot by Alexander Hamilton's throwing his vote to Jefferson because he didn't like Burr personally. (Hmmm... possibly the reason for their duel, you think?)
The election of 1824 John Quincy Adams was elected President after the election was decided by the House of Representatives in what was termed the Corrupt Bargain. The previous years had seen a one-party government in the United States, as the Federalist Party dissolved, leaving only the Democratic-Republican Party as a national political entity. In this election, the Democratic-Republican Party splintered as four separate candidates sought the presidency. This process did not yet lead to formal party organization, but later, the faction led by Andrew Jackson would evolve into the modern Democratic Party, while the factions led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay would become the National Republican Party (no relation to the current Republican Party) and then the Whig Party.
The presidential election of 1824 is notable for being the only election since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution to have been decided by the House of Representatives. Adams defeated Jackson even though Jackson had initially won the most electoral votes. Jackson and his followers accused Adams and Clay of striking a "corrupt bargain". The Jacksonians would campaign on this claim for the next four years, ultimately attaining Jackson's victory in the Adams-Jackson rematch in 1828.
The election of 1876 was indisputably an instance in which the winner of the popular vote did not also win the vote in the Electoral College. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by more than 3 percent nationwide over Rutherford B. Hayes and seemed for a time to have won the vote of the Electoral College as well. There were several oddities at play in this election. There were several disputed slates of electors.(U.S. Election Assistance Commission)
If it went to the House, Tilden most likely would have won if the electors were not counted. Instead a commission of 15 consisting of members of Congress and the Supreme Court was formed and through some slick political shenanigans Hayes was declared the winner, 8-7.
The election of 1888 saw Grover Cleveland of New York, the incumbent president and a Democrat, try to secure a second term against the Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison, a former U.S. Senator from Indiana. The economy was prosperous and the nation was at peace, but Cleveland lost re-election in the Electoral College, even though he won a plurality of the popular vote by a narrow margin. This election was notable for being the third of four U.S. presidential elections in which the winner did not win the popular vote. Had Cleveland won, he would have been the first president to been elected to 3 terms. Instead he gets to be known as being two Presidents, the 22nd and 24th. Also, he's buried in Princeton, New Jersey. (Day trip and a stop at Chuck's for Buffalo Wings.)
Another interesting fact was the 1960 election. Many Republicans believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy's running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine. These two states were important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have earned 270 electoral votes, one more than the 269 needed to win the majority in the Electoral College and the presidency. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election, and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both Illinois and Texas at the time—as well as in nine other states. Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy's victory in Illinois. (Wikipedia). Let's take this a step further. If Nixon was awarded the election, would he have escalated our involvement in Vietnam like Johnson did? Let's say he won a second term, who would have been the Republican candidate in 1968? Goldwater? I shiver with the thought. It would have been as bad as if McCain had defeated Obama.
The 2000 election debacle still irritates many Americans, not the ass-clowns who voted for Mr. Big Clown. (Refer to yesterday's blog to get the reference.). Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush. Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state, Tennessee, which both he and his father had represented in the Senate, making him the first major-party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. Bush lost in Connecticut, the state of his birth. (Losers all around.)
Now what is disturbing is that shit state of Florida and its bible thumping bigoted political machine that got away with rigging that election. That's right. I'm calling it rigging. Bush supposedly won that state, a winner-takes-all state, by 537 votes. (48 states have winner-takes-all electoral votes, Maine and Nebraska do not. They place a pointy hat on the Governor's head and wait for the hat to announce the winner... or something like that.) We can't confirm if this was true, because in the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court they stopped the recount. That's 25 electoral votes had they gone to Gore would have made him the overwhelming victor. Instead, the imposter President received the minimum to win plus 1 vote. Thanks, Florida, and especially this bitch.
Opponents of the Electoral College claim that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of how a democratic system should function. One view is that the Electoral College violates the principle of political equality, since presidential elections are not decided by the one-person one-vote principle. (Wikipedia)
Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.(Wikipedia)
There are several arguments for and against, but nothing can be proven. It's all speculation. I believe if people really thought their vote could make a difference, there would be better voter turnout. I feel in a very close race, the chance remains that the person the people want - won't be the person the people get.
Next time: Day 12 - My 5 Blessings
Comments
Post a Comment