Soldier dies while trying to vote during Civil War

[David Lockmiller]

(11-16-2018 07:43 PM)Steve Wrote:  David,

One of the most overlooked important issues in that election was the size of the House of Representatives hasn't increased with the population of the U.S. since the 1920's. If it had, Gore would've won the electoral vote regardless of the outcome in Florida.

Wikipedia: House of Representatives

The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative." Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.

States that are entitled to more than one Representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967.

States typically redraw district boundaries after each census, though they may do so at other times, such as the 2003 Texas redistricting. Each state determines its own district boundaries, either through legislation or through non-partisan panels. "Malapportionment" is unconstitutional and districts must be approximately equal in population (see Wesberry v. Sanders). Additionally, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits redistricting plans that are intended to, or have the effect of, discriminating against racial or language minority voters.

Aside from malapportionment and discrimination against racial or language minorities, federal courts have allowed state legislatures to engage in gerrymandering for the benefit of political parties or incumbents. In a 1984 case, Davis v. Bandemer, the Supreme Court held that gerrymandered districts could be struck down on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, but the Court did not articulate a standard for when districts are impermissibly gerrymandered. However, the Court overruled Davis in 2004 in Vieth v. Jubelirer, and Court precedent currently holds gerrymandering to be a political question.

Los Angeles Times -- December 10, 2010

The nation's population and political heft continued to swing toward the South and West in the 2010 census, but for the first time since statehood, California's population did not grow enough to gain additional congressional seats, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

As it has since the last reapportionment 10 years ago, the state will continue to have 53 members in the House of Representatives — by far the largest bloc. California gained about 3.4 million residents over the decade, a 10% growth rate that closely tracked the national rate.

The U.S. population reached 308.7 million, but the growth rate for the decade was the lowest since the Great Depression.

The big winners in the once-a-decade reallocation of House seats were Texas, which will gain four seats, and Florida, which will gain two. The biggest losers were New York and Ohio, which each lose two. Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington will pick up one seat each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will each lose one.

Steve, please note this statement in my post #15: "Ultimately, Bush won 271 electoral votes, one more than was necessary for the majority." In the paragraph immediately above, it is stated that Florida gained two electoral votes as a result of the 2010 census. That means the presidential vote in Florida will be even more important in 2020. Sounds to me like things are getting worse! Agree or disagree?

[RJNorton]

This is my personal opinion on why the USA will probably never abandon the Electoral College system in favor of a nationwide popular vote for President.

Each state receives at least three electors (two plus its number of representatives). The fact that all states have these two electors means the small population states are able to cast significantly more per capita electoral votes than the large states. This gives the smaller states more power in a Presidential election than they would have if there were a simple nationwide popular vote. The small states may not even see a presidential candidate campaign in their state, but they still have this extra electoral power.

IMO, Congress and the states would never approve abandoning the Electoral College because many smaller states would not vote for it, and the 2/3 vote in Congress and 3/4 vote of the states (needed for an amendment) would be impossible to achieve. I just do not see enough of the smaller states abandoning their extra electoral power.

[David Lockmiller]

(11-17-2018 05:10 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  This is my personal opinion on why the USA will probably never abandon the Electoral College system in favor of a nationwide popular vote for President.

Each state receives at least three electors (two plus its number of representatives). The fact that all states have these two electors means the small population states are able to cast significantly more per capita electoral votes than the large states. This gives the smaller states more power in a Presidential election than they would have if there were a simple nationwide popular vote. The small states may not even see a presidential candidate campaign in their state, but they still have this extra electoral power.

IMO, Congress and the states would never approve abandoning the Electoral College because many smaller states would not vote for it, and the 2/3 vote in Congress and 3/4 vote of the states (needed for an amendment) would be impossible to achieve. I just do not see enough of the smaller states abandoning their extra electoral power.

I believe that the counter argument would be that even the small states must realize the imminent danger of permitting what happened with the Florida situation in 2000 to happen once again in 2020. The midterm election in 2018 and the evenly-contested vote in Florida is positive proof that possibility (or, one might argue almost a "certainty") is a continuing reality.

E pluribus unum was considered a de facto motto of the United States until 1956 when the United States Congress passed an act (H. J. Resolution 396), adopting "In God We Trust" as the official motto. E pluribus unum is included in the Great Seal of the United States, being one of the nation's mottos at the time of the seal's creation. E pluribus unum —Latin for "Out of many, one" (alternatively translated as "One out of many" or "One from many").

Perhaps "E pluribus unum" should now be legislatively adopted as the official motto of the United States and all of the states should act individually in accordance with this motto in consideration of such a constitutional amendment. The disproportionate government representation weight given to small states in the make-up of the U. S. Congress (i.e., the Senate) should be enough for the small states. Consideration for the well-being of the whole nation should be their paramount concern at this time in our nation's history - "E pluribus unum."

Roger, would you please post an image of the Great Seal of the United States? There is such an image on Wikipedia at "E pluribus unum."

[L Verge]

I think the majority of us are on the same page with you, Roger. Even way back in the last century when I was a teacher, my ninth grade government students understood the reasoning behind the Electoral College.

[RJNorton]

(11-17-2018 11:54 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Roger, would you please post an image of the Great Seal of the United States? There is such an image on Wikipedia at "E pluribus unum."

I shall be glad to, David. Here it is:

[David Lockmiller]

I remember the 2000 election with both presidential candidates going back to Florida to campaign time and time again. And, of course, both candidates followed the polls in Florida religiously. It is an undisputed fact that the state of Florida is closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, although not evenly throughout the state.

In California, the largest population state in the Union, presidential candidates do not come to the state to campaign; the candidates for both parties come to California for fund raisers only. California has been a solid Democratic state for a very long time. It is an irony that a much smaller population state, Florida, is very much more important in any presidential election than is the largest population state in the Union, California.

It is often presumed that our "founding fathers" who created the Constitution were nearly infallible. However, on September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights and were ratified effective December 15, 1791.

The Congress of the United States, meeting in the City of New York in 1789, introduced to the Legislatures of the several States the first twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution with these words:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:"

I agree with Roger's statement: "I just do not see enough of the smaller states abandoning their extra electoral power."

I have made an argument that a constitutional amendment is necessary at this time for the continuation of this democracy as it should be, with every citizen's vote for the President of the United States counted equally.

[L Verge]

(11-17-2018 02:11 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-17-2018 11:54 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Roger, would you please post an image of the Great Seal of the United States? There is such an image on Wikipedia at "E pluribus unum."

I shall be glad to, David. Here it is:

I feel like we don't practice that Seal's claim much anymore, if we ever did. Last summer, I had to give a talk on diversity, ethnicity, and inclusion and how we in the museum field can apply those principles while still focusing on our particular era and subject. I started by asking folks to raise their hands if they were English, French, Italian, German, Scandanavian, African, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc.

As I did that, I held up a colored piece of paper with the corresponding ethnic category printed on it. As the hands went up, I tossed the paper into a glass salad bowl until there were approximately 12-15 pieces of paper in the bowl.

My next question was, "How many of you have heard the U,S. A. referred to as "the melting pot of the world"? Every hand went up, and I then said that we are no longer considered that. We have become the Salad Bowl of the world, where every diverse group is allowed its own traditions, values, and recognition. Some of you may have also heard the U.S. referred to as United Shades of America for much the same reason.

We then went into the contributions that various groups made to America as they immigrated here -- food, entertainment, science, sports, politics, etc. In the audience were representatives from about ten of our county's historic house museums (including support staff), and each of those sites were built in the 1700s - 1800s by folks of various ethnic backgrounds that we had mentioned. It was interesting to note that those in the audience who did not know the history of our sites had always considered them just "dead, rich white men's homes" served by enslaved laborers...

I guess what I'm trying to say here in reference to David asking for the Great Seal of the U.S. to be posted is that, as much as we would like to think that the U.S. stands as one voice from many different throats, it just isn't happening. We have always been a nation of many opinions based on our backgrounds and on the past political forces that have formed our experiences (whether here or in our forefathers' countries of origin).

We have high roads and low roads in our journey for good political representation of all, fair laws for all, equity for all. I just don't think that we will ever achieve Utopia in the politics and society of our nation -- especially with 300 million legal and illegal people going to the polls, and the mass media and social media giving them screwed-up guidance!

To me, the current system of voting, including the Electoral College, gets as close to achieving equality at the polls as we can hope for. This is just a personal observation from one who has been a registered Democrat all her life -- God bless the Electoral College in sparing us the grief of a Gore presidency and a female Clinton presidency. Now, if they just had the right to stop Nancy Pelosi from assuming the position of Speaker of the House yet again...

[Gene C]

I'm not sure which is worse, crooked officials supervising the election and vote counting process, or Boris and Natasha trying to influence ignorant voters on Facebook.

At least currently the vote counting irregularities have not crept into a national vote counting system. And, can someone help me getting these boxes of uncounted ballots out of the trunk of my car, don't know how they got there.

[RJNorton]

(11-17-2018 05:27 PM)Gene C Wrote:  And, can someone help me getting these boxes of uncounted ballots out of the trunk of my car, don't know how they got there.

Gene, I am contacting this gentleman to help you:

[David Lockmiller]

(11-17-2018 04:36 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I feel like we don't practice that Seal's claim much anymore, if we ever did.

The Civil War (under President Abraham Lincoln's leadership), World War I, and especially World War II

[JMadonna]

It is what it is and as long as the laws on the books are ignored, it will continue to be.
If there is a chance to steal an election from an evenly divided state - that chance will be taken.

[David Lockmiller]

"Vote-Stealing Battle in Florida Portends More Distrust in System for 2020"

New York Times - Nov. 19, 2018 edition

The chaotic images out of Florida’s election recount last week — the brigade of Washington lawyers, the déjà vu meltdown of the tallying in Broward County, the vitriolic charges and countercharges — have prompted flashbacks among the electorate of the 2000 presidential election.

Yet to the combatants in both parties fighting over impossibly tight races for governor and senate, the 2018 election was less about revisiting past political traumas than about setting the stage for the bitter 2020 campaign ahead. The legal and political skirmishing in the state, Republicans and Democrats say, has been an ominous dry run for messaging and tactics about fraud and vote-stealing that threaten to further undermine confidence in the electoral system.

“If what’s going on now is transposed to a presidential election, it would tax our system in a way that is much greater than what happened in 2000,” said Edward Foley, a professor of election law at Ohio State University and one of the country’s pre-eminent scholars on recounts.

JMadonna correctly pointed out in his post made today: "If there is a chance to steal an election from an evenly divided state - that chance will be taken."

Two years from this month, another presidential election will take place. And, based on the 2016 presidential election popular vote results for the nation, the popular vote in Florida in 2020 for President may well determine the Electoral College vote outcome for President of this nation.

That result would be an "unfair and unjust" presidential election and that is why I believe a presidential election amendment to the Constitution, based on the popular vote of this "E pluribus unum" nation of states as a whole, is now necessary.

There is no sustainable counter argument. Roger's post is not a counter argument, but rather an observation that such an amendment will not be ratified by the requisite number of states:

"Congress and the states would never approve abandoning the Electoral College because many smaller states would not vote for it, and the 2/3 vote in Congress and 3/4 vote of the states (needed for an amendment) would be impossible to achieve. I just do not see enough of the smaller states abandoning their extra electoral power."

Such a beneficent act must be willingly made by a few states. For the well-being of the nation as a whole, I trust that this act will be done in time.

[JMadonna]

I hope you aren't saying that eliminating the electoral college will solve the problem of corrupt officials stuffing the ballot box.

[AussieMick]

David, I know (for certain) that you only want what is best for the US and indeed the whole world. But it does seem to me that your 'argument' is along the lines "The candidate that I wanted failed to win, so I want the system changed."

Can you give the top 3 reasons (in bullet points) as to why the current system is bad /failing ?
You might like to identify the possible objections to your proposed change and counter them in advance.

[L Verge]

In the 1864 election, Maryland had its dose of election fraud - but not stuffing the ballot box. It was more like stuffing the election polls with Union soldiers who were not Marylanders...

The absolute best online poster that I have seen since the Nov. 6 election this year is a view of vacant city streets with a caption that reads: "Republicans protest the loss of seats in the House of Representatives." Wish I could find it again on my computer.