Comments for The Other Half of History

Comment on Lying About McCarthy by Gary M

Gary M — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:14:36 +0000

What would be nice is to see a major newspaper or network TV program detail where McCarthy was right and where his detractors were wrong. Oh, I’m sorry, I must have dozed off and landed in fantasy land.
These liberal creeps would never admit they are wrong, and just get angrier when you prove them wrong.

Comment on Bush, Gore, & the Florida Re-Count by toto

toto — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:38:31 +0000

RE: “The Electoral College system for electing US Presidents was written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.”

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.

Comment on Bush, Gore, & the Florida Re-Count by Go Fish

Go Fish — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:23:25 +0000

Dale Brethower,

Another thing the author left out is that Gore tried to block overseas absentee ballots from US servicemen from being counted.

No way to honor those who wear our country’s uniform. He wants criminals to be able to vote, but not our soldiers.

Comment on Bush, Gore, & the Florida Re-Count by william randolph

william randolph — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:31:31 +0000

interesting observation that 91% of those in prison are male, yet noone accuses the system of sexism

Comment on Bush, Gore, & the Florida Re-Count by Dale Brethower

Dale Brethower — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:47:50 +0000

Thanks for the analysis of the texts.
It might be worth pointing out, if the texts include the bit about “the Supreme Court decided the outcome for Bush,” that at least two independent recounts showed that the election would have gone to Bush had all the votes been counted. If the texts didn’t mention that the media called the election for Gore before the polls closed in the Florida panhandle, which typically votes Republican, that could also be mentioned along with the fact that calling the election before polls close was a no-no even then.