Blacks and the Electoral College
In my opinion, the Electoral College exposes how deceitful the Democratic party has been using it as a behind the scenes manipulator.
When dealing with Blacks in America, some have concluded it is of the uppermost importance to deceive for fears of a Carter G. Woodson, Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X peeping their cards.
It would be interesting to me to know the year the Electoral College was instituted and the true rationale as stated in the decree.
In my opinion, getting rid of the Electoral college would yield better Democrats who do not have to listen to and make pledges to the wish lists of the various Delegates and Super Delegates.
This practice may be the reason Pres. Obama picked Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geither etc., due to the fact he needs their influence in the Electoral College for his re-election.
I am mindful during the ‘08 Presidential Elections how the distractions regarding Delegates and Super Delegates were voluminous and irritating. In my opinion, it was the first time many of us got a birds’ eye view as to how tricky the Democratic party is and why so many of us have fragile relationships with it. Most of the Democratic traitors are imbedded within the Super Delegate culture, demanding various favors for their votes etc.,
With the full exposure of the Electoral College, we can summarize past events of “a wink and nod” between the two parties: “I will put up a candidate to let your candidate win with hands down. What are you going to do for me?”
As always,
BB
P.S. I note during the ‘08 elections, Rahm did not pledge support for Obama.
Superdelegates' Clout CURBED? Democrats Propose Less Influence For VIP Delegates
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Democrats have taken an initial step toward limiting the influence of so-called independent superdelegates in choosing the party's presidential nominee in 2012.
Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/10/superdelegates-clout-curb_n_642002.html
When dealing with Blacks in America, some have concluded it is of the uppermost importance to deceive for fears of a Carter G. Woodson, Martin Luther King or a Malcolm X peeping their cards.
It would be interesting to me to know the year the Electoral College was instituted and the true rationale as stated in the decree.
In my opinion, getting rid of the Electoral college would yield better Democrats who do not have to listen to and make pledges to the wish lists of the various Delegates and Super Delegates.
This practice may be the reason Pres. Obama picked Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geither etc., due to the fact he needs their influence in the Electoral College for his re-election.
I am mindful during the ‘08 Presidential Elections how the distractions regarding Delegates and Super Delegates were voluminous and irritating. In my opinion, it was the first time many of us got a birds’ eye view as to how tricky the Democratic party is and why so many of us have fragile relationships with it. Most of the Democratic traitors are imbedded within the Super Delegate culture, demanding various favors for their votes etc.,
With the full exposure of the Electoral College, we can summarize past events of “a wink and nod” between the two parties: “I will put up a candidate to let your candidate win with hands down. What are you going to do for me?”
As always,
BB
P.S. I note during the ‘08 elections, Rahm did not pledge support for Obama.
Superdelegates' Clout CURBED? Democrats Propose Less Influence For VIP Delegates
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Democrats have taken an initial step toward limiting the influence of so-called independent superdelegates in choosing the party's presidential nominee in 2012.
Read more at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/10/superdelegates-clout-curb_n_642002.html
posted by BB at 2:16 PM
3 Comments:
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
Under the current system, battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.
Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These "spectator" states receive no campaign attention, visits or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.
The influence of minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%.
The Asian American Action Fund, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, National Latino Congreso, and National Black Caucus of State Legislators endorse a national popular vote for president.
Susan, your information is meaningful. Many thanks for your contributions.
Post a Comment
<< Home