Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (35378)	11/8/2000 8:04:48 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Evil Empire update: finance.yahoo.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (35378)	11/8/2000 8:27:29 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

CB - I can't imagine a Florida Republican elector voting for anyone but Bush. If Bush doesn't carry OR, the question will be about any 2 of the 271 Bush electors nationwide. Regards, Don

To: Ilaine who wrote (35378)	11/8/2000 9:25:13 PM
From: Terry Whitman	Respond to of 436258

I didn't realize (or forgot) that the prez and VP could end up from opposing parties: >Weaknesses of the System The electoral college system generally gives all of a state's electoral votes to the winner in that state, no matter how slim the margin. Thus it has happened that candidates have been elected even though they received fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. HAYES, in 1876, and Benjamin HARRISON, in 1888, were elected in this manner. In the case of Hayes, a special electoral commission was called in 1877 to decide the contested returns. John Quincy ADAMS also received fewer popular votes than his opponent, Andrew JACKSON, in the election of 1824, but his election was decided by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES because Jackson failed to win a majority of electoral college votes. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. KENNEDY over Richard M. NIXON in 1960. The feature of the electoral college most prone to attack is the requirement that the election go into the House of Representatives to determine the president and into the SENATE to determine the vice president if the electoral college fails to reach a majority. There might be a paralyzing delay in determining the victors, and the president-elect and vice president-elect could be members of opposing political parties. The House was called upon to elect a president in the cases of Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, and the Senate chose Richard M. JOHNSON as vice president after the election of 1836. The possibility of this happening again remains very much alive. Should a third-party candidate carry enough states to prevent an electoral vote majority for any candidate, the House, voting by state delegation, might be prevented from reaching an absolute majority. Pledged electors generally have been regarded as legally free to cast their votes as they choose, and there have been cases of defection from pledged positions. No such deviation has had a clear effect on an election result, but the possibility raises an additional objection to the electoral college. In 1820 a New Hampshire elector voted for John Quincy Adams instead of James MONROE; in 1956 an Alabama elector voted for a circuit judge instead of Adlai E. Stevenson; in 1960 an Oklahoma elector pledged to Richard Nixon voted instead for Harry F. Byrd; in 1968 a North Carolina elector defected from Nixon to George C. Wallace; and in 1988 a West Virginia elector voted for Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. instead of Michael S. Dukakis. < It really is a potential political nightmare. The leader of the free world in limbo for an undetermined period. I'm fairly certain if Bill Clinton were up for election, he'd fight it any way he could. It remains to be seen if Gore is any more honorable than his boss.

To: Ilaine who wrote (35378)	11/8/2000 11:24:07 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

CB, I re-read the Constitution last night. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." Does this mean it is a violation of federal law to question the validity of the public debt? Or are the states, rather than individuals, the subject of this clause?