Posts Tagged ‘“electoral college”’

Why is the decision by the Administration, through its Department of Commerce Census Bureau, to count all residents of the United States without regard to resident status in the 2010 Census a big deal?

Before we can answer this question, we need some background.  The United States Census is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic.   It is the ultimate arbiter of how states are represented in the House of Representatives and how the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.   Due to the cornerstone nature of the Census to our nation, it is unconscionable to make the 2010 Census subject to tampering, manipulation, a skewed citizen count, or an ideological interpretation.  Why will it be skewed if the current Census Director, members of Congress, and the Administration proceed as intended?

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution originally provided for the enumeration of “persons” of the several states.  At the time the Constitution was adopted, “persons” consisted of free persons and a three fifths fraction of the slaves inhabiting this land, with the exception of Indians.  Let’s look to a further clarification of the intent of the Founders at the time of ratification of the Constitution by the states.  We find in Article II, Section 1 instructions on the presidency eligibility: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Thus all persons residing in the United States at ratification were considered to be Citizens of the United States and thus the term persons referred to Citizens.  We also find that the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 2, which modified Article 1 Section 2, requires “…counting the whole number of all persons…” eliminating the fraction and the counting only of free persons.

Before you go off on a tangent about the callous use of a “fraction” of slaves, the compromise method was to prevent the people of the Southern States from having a lopsided vote and a lopsided representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College and a “super vote”, if you will, using slaves to inflate the population count, while only white men voted.    Now to the big deal!

The 2010 census operation fully plans to count any person legal or illegal, citizen or non-citizen—remember only citizens can vote.  We should be counting only “persons” which in the Constitution is synonymous with citizens.  Failure to do this means that states with an abundance of people who are not citizens made up of both legal and illegal residents, without the right to vote, will be unjustly rewarded with more representatives in Congress for law making and taxation and a greater weight to the Electoral College to elect the president of the United States.  If we grant more representatives and more electoral votes to these states, then we seriously skew the one person (citizen) one vote rule.  We end up giving the citizens of these states the power to cast what amount to those “super votes”.  Essentially, a smaller electorate will have the power of a larger state population.

Senator Vitter of Louisiana, Senator Bennett of Utah, and Representative Chaffets of Utah, want to add a question to the Census Questionnaire, which asks “are you a citizen?”  They are not being received very well, by the Bureau of the Census and members of Congress.  Seems like a logical and appropriate constitutional question to ask during a census, as we are also asking many other questions that are not nearly as important as how many possible legitimate voters exist to apportion House seats and to be represented in the Electoral College—remember only citizens are supposed to vote and be counted in Congress.

We must be cognizant of and stand up to prevent this ideological effort to establish an unbalanced and truly un-constitutional apportionment in the House of Representatives and in Electoral College voting to states with a large illegal population.

Read Full Post »

What if Hillary Clinton, feeling that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left, decides to form a new political party in her run for President? I took a look at that scenario and was surprised to see my findings. The approach used to come up with the findings is far from scientific and could not get anymore low budget, but there is some reasonable rationale to the approach.

I started out with the simple premise that three major candidates and one minor candidate will be on the ballot in November – Obama, Clinton, McCain, Nader. With Obama and Nader sharing the far left, Clinton and McCain sharing the moderates, and the conservatives voting for McCain, since they have no horse in the race, the vote would be heavily split and winning a state’s electoral vote will not require a majority.

The next premise was that strong red states will continue to go with the Republicans and John McCain. The blue states were a different matter. In those states I looked at either the primary results or the polls where primaries have not as yet been held. When looking at the blue states, only a few battle ground states appeared and they will be discussed later.

538 electoral votes are at play and the Electoral College is not based on proportional votes and there are no super electors. 270 votes are needed to win the Presidency. The analysis of the primary results, polls, and voting history provided the following:

McCain wins Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming for a total of 191 electoral votes.

Obama wins Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 131 electoral votes.

Clinton wins Arkansas, California, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for 172 electoral votes.

Two states are very hard to figure do to the split votes and they are Florida and Michigan. After the Democratic Party primary debacle it is anyone’s guess as to how these states will go especially with four candidates on the ballot. Even so they represent 44 electoral votes, less than what any of the candidates will need to clinch. Despite some disagreement with how a state might fall, there seems to be no mix to give anyone candidate 270 electoral votes. Now what? It goes to the House of Representatives. The difference here is that the House votes by state and each state has but one vote – more infighting.

The following is an excerpt from the National Archives and records Administration web site: If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#270

If the respective state delegations follow the way their state fell, with no candidate getting a majority, then McCain might garner 22 votes including Florida; Clinton 9 votes; and Obama 19 votes including Michigan. I believe that the decisions, within each state delegation, are not readily apparent and anything could happen. Even though Senator Clinton would have the fewest states, she could win as a long shot.

As ludicrous as this all seems, the Clintons may realize that forming a third party and continuing on, if Senator Clinton does not receive the Democratic Party’s nomination, as a candidate for President may just work.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: