Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President 601
At 3:00 Eastern time on Monday Dec. 15, 538 electors in state capitols across the US cast the votes that actually elected Barack Obama the 44th President. Obama received, unofficially, 365 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win). The exact total will not be official — or Obama officially elected — until Congress certifies the count of electoral votes in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2009. The Electoral College was established in its present form in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state — in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise, but no "faithless elector" has ever been charged with a crime. "On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. ... To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election."
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So all that is left. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And? (Score:1, Informative)
Personally, I suspect pudge is behind this one, since he wrote a rant [slashdot.org] last night about how nobody at all covered this, and how the news companies that did screwed up by calling it "official".
Suddenly, slashdot has an article about the "unofficial" electoral college results. What a coincidence?
Re:So all that is left. (Score:3, Informative)
(2) Obama may have been born in Southeast Asia, and therefore not a natural born citizen.
Everything I have seen indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii. Got anything to back up your claim?
Re:for all the founding fathers did right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So all that is left. (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. Barack Hussein Obama was, indeed, born in Hawaii 2 years after Hawaii achieved statehood. Read all about it on Snopes. [google.com] Say what you will, but Barb and Dave are usually pretty good about scoping out all the facts.
Re:So all that is left. (Score:5, Informative)
1) Technically all the questions to those in Kenya about Barrack Obama, have neglected to specify Jr or Sr. Since him and his father share an identical name, its impossible to know which one they are talking about.
2) Minors can not give up their citizenship. And parents can't give up their minor's citizenship.
Re:no, wrong (Score:2, Informative)
You've posted this same exact comment before, haven't you? I know I've seen it. I'm not criticizing, just curious because I know I've read it.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking of Palin, the electoral college actually casts two votes: one for the office of the Presidency, the other for the Vice-Presidency.
It is therefore possible for faithless electors to mix and match parties. The could elect an Obama/Palin administration, or a McCain/Biden one.
Re:for all the founding fathers did right (Score:3, Informative)
What does majority have to do with it? In a popular-vote race, you can win with a plurality.
Re:So all that is left. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So all that is left. (Score:4, Informative)
The head of the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed on October 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu, saying that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
In addition, just a few days ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case brought against Obama regarding his citizenship.
It's over. Quit bringing it up.
Re:Let's make it interesting (Score:5, Informative)
in case it's not known. the number of electors per state is proportional to the states population, plus 2. (techincally it's equal to the number of congressmen and senators)
One of it's qualities is also to provide a mechanism for reliable elections in the event of disruptions. Death of the candidate or wartime issues were more of a problem a long time ago and this provides the existence of a deliberative body separate from congress itself to consider what to do when the unexpected happens. (Ultimately the legislative branch selects the president in the event all else fails. and this has happened several times.)
Even though the electors are nominally "bound" to vote for the person they were chosen to represent, the intent to give them some deliberative power is clear. Originally they were given two votes. The expectation was they would cast the first vote for locally selected favorite. But they could freely choose some person of greater national interest with the second vote.
Indeed in one election, martin van buren's I believe. The opposing party actually ran three candidates for president, each one a regional favorite in different parts of the country. The plan was that the electors's would down-select to just one of the three in their second vote.
the strategy was never tested as the opposing party had more than 50% of the electors.
But the point is, the electoral system is not supposed to be simply a popular vote. it's supposed to choose the person who is, while very popular, the one who is most representative of a diverse electorate, representing all the states, and with a weight proportional to the state's representation in congress, not simply the number of eligible and able voters.
Re:Roger MacBride/Tonie Nathan (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the way the Electoral College was suppose to work was changed back after our fourth election for POTUS. Jefferson (the presidential candidate) and Burr (the *VICE* presidential candidate) both got the same number of electoral votes. This happened because the wisdom of our founding fathers dictated that each elector got TWO votes for president. The second place finisher was suppose to be vice president. This was the first campaign where the election of president was actually contested, and the results led to the creation of our first two party system with Federalists and Republicans (who later became known as the Democratic Republicans and even later as Democrats).
Since all of the Republican electors chose both Jefferson and Burr, they were tied in the Electoral College. Officially, Burr should have stepped aside and let Jefferson be president. However, Federalists convinced Burr not to drop out, and the vote went to the House where after 30 ballots, there was still no decision. Hamilton -- a Federalist -- convinced Federalist House members that not respecting the outcome of the election was probably more damaging to the Republic than allowing an "atheist" like Jefferson as President.
The whole Electoral College system came about because we didn't have universal suffrage in this country. In Virginia, the most populous state, only White males with the largest land holdings could vote while in Pennsylvania, almost all freemen were allowed to vote. Allowing a direct vote for President would mean that smaller Pennsylvania would have two to three times the voting power of Virginia.
The Constitutional Convention tried to come up with tax and landholding requirements for voting, but failed. Plus, there was disagreement about how slaves should affect a state's voting power for the office. The Electoral College was a punt. The Constitution didn't even bother to specify how electors would be chosen.
They did give each elector the ability to have two votes for President, so they could choose one local guy and one guy who wasn't a resident of that state. This was done because when you only have a very small select group of men voting, their was fear that there would be a lot of political hanky-panky and vote trading. Allowing the electors an outlet to cast a spurious vote for a local political bigwig was a way of venting this political horse trading. After all, what was the worse that could happen?
In the first three elections, all electors were chosen by the voters, and the electors were chosen by districts. This was how the election was envisioned to happen by our founding fathers. However, when Adams ran against Jefferson, states started mucking up the rules. In New York, the way electors were chosen was changed from election (which would allow the Republicans to get some electors) to having the legislature choose them (to guarantee all electors would be Federalists). When the Federalists lost the legislature, the outgoing legislature changed the rules to allow the Governor to choose them instead of the Republican dominated incoming legislature.
Election shenanigans wasn't a Federalist monopoly. Almost all states changed the way electors were chosen in order to satisfy the dominant political party. It was the first time states used a winner takes all method of selecting electors. A method that is still with us today, and probably not something the original writers of the Constitution imagined would happen.
Today, the United States is one of the few presidential republics that don't allow direct election of their president. Historically, electoral colleges were used to keep the powers in power. It was the way Indonesia used to keep Suharto in power and it is currently used in Hong Kong to keep democracy advocates at bay. It's a great way to make sure that you can remain in power when you don't have popular support.
The Electoral College in the U.S. lost its initial purpose with the election of Andrew Jackson which started a period of universal suffrage when property and
Re:So all that is left. (Score:5, Informative)
Not that it matters much, but this canard about only Indonesian citizens enrolling in schools in Indonesia is complete crap and is further evidence of just how morally bankrupt the entire "controversy" is.
I not only happen to live right across the straits from Indonesia [1], I also keep going there for short-trips, one as recently as two weeks back. Many of my colleagues, including my immediate boss, are Indonesian, as are many friends; many more grew up as ex-pats in Jakarta, in ways similar to Obama did in the 60's. Take it from me; you dont need to be Indonesian to attend a school there. It is a piece of absolute and complete rubbish that should insult anybody's intelligence.
On further googling: Perhaps you meant to talk about this piece of excrement [daylife.com], the true extent of whose stench is only apparent when you realize that Obama attended a public school [ucla.edu] that's colloquially called as SDN Besuki [wikipedia.org], and not a Catholic school named after St Francis of Assisi in Bahasa Indonesia [wikipedia.org] (that's Indonesia's national language [wikipedia.org], in case you were wondering).
[1] - I mean that in a reality-based, non-Palin-isque sense; yes, Indonesia is just across the Straits of Malacca, some 45 min away by boat. I can, indeed, see Indonesia on a clear day and sometimes receive Indonesian mobile network while I'm in my own room.
Re:So all that is left. (Score:5, Informative)
When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org [factcheck.org] and PolitiFact.com [politifact.com] both show copies of it.
For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.
When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".
To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.
Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures. [factcheck.org]
Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.
The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.
The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".
Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.
Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.
A datestamp on the jpeg can mean anything like
Re:And? (Score:2, Informative)
PS - I voted for Nader asshole.
Good for you, nice choice. Picking (what I would consider) a good candidate doesn't seem to have helped the partisan pain I mention above. (If you point out where I called you a Republican, I'll graciously concede). The fact that the discussion we SHOULD be having is about a process instantly makes it better than half of the things slashdot has been posting to the frontpage lately.
Nerds call getting someone to tell them their password 'social engineering', well, a nerd that can get someone to hand them a list of IBM board member and department head passwords would be a script kiddie compared to the social hackery which is the U.S. electoral system. Your obvious animosity aside, the topic is "appropriate" reading for slashdot.
Another thing, this is CmdrTaco's BLOG. Don't like the topic, start your own blog (or, more likely, make your current one not suck). Simple, no?
P.S. Not everyone who calls you out on off-topic whining is an asshole, but in this case you actually got it right. I -AM- an asshole, and I'm good at it. You on the other hand are a whiny little douche who would rather cry about something they don't like than to spend the mental effort it takes to discuss the topic at hand. Your post added nothing of value to the topic at hand, and did nothing but show everyone what kind of spoiled child you are. Pathetic and worthless.
NOW you're justified in calling me an asshole, douche.
Re:So all that is left. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So.. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't even think about it. The thought of miss Africa-is-too-a-country being anywhere near the line of succession gives me the willies. Fortunately, that's not going to happen. Her destiny is the same as that for all opinionated idiots who run past their 15 minutes — cable TV pundit.
But you know, it's not really correct to say that Obama got elected yesterday. The ballots were cast, but they don't get counted until January 5. And you know who the Constitution designates to count these ballots? The VP, Mr. Dick Cheney. Let's hope he's more careful with his record keeping this time!
Re:And? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Let's make it interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Boycott, not blockade. i.e. the other states stopped trading with them, but didn't do anything to prevent them trading with other countries. Fairly serious economic sanctions in any case, but not military force.
The Constitution had been enacted with 4 states as holdouts, but the other 3 ratified it before it actually took effect. The agrarian party in Rhode Island wanted a liberal monetary policy to benefit farmers, and was concerned that with a stronger federal government, the other states would push the state around economically. Which the other states immediately did. This disagreement between over economics, and the (armed) conflict it had already inspired (Shay's Rebellion) was a major impetus for the constitutional convention in the first place.
So my previous post might have more accurately described the Electoral College as a crude compromise to get Delaware and Georgia on board. Rhode Island wasn't going to be since hadn't even sent anyone to the convention, so they needed the critical mass to steamroller them into it regardless.
If realizing the Constitution is based on a fair bit of crude political deal making disturbs anyone, consider it an improvement on raising a private militia and shooting each other. Because that's what it was (and is). I'm a reasonably big fan of the US Constitution, but that's not because it's perfect. It doesn't have to be to be a lot better than the alternative.