TexasCHLforum.com

kalipsocs wrote:

...or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical.

You make a decent case, but you conveniently left out that second part of the same sentence. My simple answer to the flaw in this logic is the 2004 election. Shoot me down for using wikipedia, but their numbers state Bush netted 62,040,610 votes and Kerry 59,028,444. Thats is a difference of 3,012,166 votes a narrow margin when you are talking about 121+ million votes. If you ask me, thats about as middle of the road as you get. Based on that phenomenon, I don't see how your argument for the electoral college makes much sense.

And ye have little faith in ratifying a new amendment. The last amendment (27th to be precise) to be ratified was in 1992 by a student from UT. Granted, it was presented 100+ years previously, but unless a time limit is specified for such matters a proposed amendment may go on indefinitely as provided in Supreme Court case Coleman vs. Miller. So all you would have to do is make a good case! But I am not going to argue over what isn't and over something I am not going to spearhead.

I have no problem with using Wikipedia. It's not a perfect source, but it's an adequate one. The numbers are probably correct, because if the author fudged the figures, it would be too easy to fact check and edit the entry to correct the numbers. And yes, you're right that Bush/Kerry was close enough in the popular vote that the effect of the electoral college was not so noticeable. But it could just as easily have happened the other way - and had it done so, then what I wrote would come into play.

As far as the oil lamps and quill pens, so what? It was only incidental to the main thrust of why the electoral college system was created. The main reason was exactly as I described it.

Regarding the 27th Amendment, I find two different sources, one claiming that it was Michigan's ratification that put it over the top, the other claiming that it was Alabama's that did it. I don't suppose it really matters which it was. I didn't know that it was a UT student who discovered it and renewed the push for its ratification. In any case, the fact that the 27th took 203 years to ratify makes it an out of the ordinary example. For example, the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 went out for ratification with a 7 year deadline. It failed to be ratified. Congress granted an extension until 1982. It still failed to be ratified. It has been reintroduced in Congress every year since, and it still has not been ratified (this last time without any time limit) - largely because expanded interpretations of already existing laws and constitutional provisions which provide more equal treatment between men and women. They are persistent. I'll give them that.

Be that as it may, I still think that you would find that it would not be nearly impossible to get the 38 state ratifications necessary to abolish the electoral college because those states whose interest would least be served by abolishing it are not likely to ratify it, and they probably number more than 12.

kalipsocs wrote:Why? How is it a fair election that a few select people decide the next president than the total count of votes for the entire country? Not to mention no one is riding on horseback as fast as they can to get the vote in! Times change and its hardly fair that Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a couple other states get to choose the next president.

Well, you'll have to amend the Constitution to get rid of it, as the electoral college (as it is called now) was established under the authority of Article II, Section I, and Amendment 12. In order to pass a new amendment abolishing the electoral college, you would have to have it ratified by 3/4 of the 50 states - which will never happen because, for many of those states, it would not be in their interests to do so, and they darn will know it.

According to USConstitution.net:

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

The phrase "too beholden to local interests" would be played out by such things as the local interests of large cities of the eastern and western seaboards, the great lakes region, and the Mississippi river valley completely overwhelming the local interests of Wyoming cattle ranchers and Kansas wheat farmers. The fact that an enormous chunk of the population live in the nation's largest cities still tends to have that effect, but it is somewhat mitigated by the electoral college.

Since the nation was founded on the premise that we are a federation of sovereign states, the interests of the several states have to be looked after in the selection of a nationally elected office. Amending the Constitution will remove that filter, effectively disenfranchising anybody who lives in a predominantly rural state. Abolishing the electoral college sounds like a good idea until you unpack it. Then it doesn't stand up so well.

kalipsocs wrote:And not to change topics, but the electoral college needs to be done away with....period.

I disagree.

Thank you for accepting the sincerity of my respect for you. When discussing politics and religion, it is a very difficult thing to disagree while maintaining respect, and it can be easy to unintentionally offend. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree. Like I said, I understand your viewpoint, and while I'm not a Libertarian, as a conservative I share some parts of your political philosophy. I just don't think it is a wise strategy at this time, but like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Tony Blankley has written a fairly hard-hitting opinion piece for Real Clear Politics called "The Birth of the Me-Too Conservative". There is a lot of truth in it:

With the rise to enduring power of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933, a new type of Republican emerged in reaction to FDR's attractive and overawing power: the me-too Republican. Until the election of President Reagan five decades later, these me-too Republicans supported, rather than opposed, Democratic Party policies but claimed they would administer them better. Of course, this led to a half-century of Democratic dominance of American government and politics.

FDR himself cruelly mocked this pathetic breed of spineless, protect-your-career-at-any-cost Republican politicians:

"Let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion which says: 'Of course we believe all these things. We believe in Social Security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them; we will do more of them; we will do them better; and best of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.'"

Now, on the cusp of what some think will be a major Obama victory, we are beginning to see emerge what I will call "me-too conservatives" -- initially among conservative commentators (politicians to follow). I have in mind, among others: Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, David Frum and Kathleen Parker.

Now, the point he makes about so-called conservatives during FDR's presidency is spot on. I agree with it, and I realize that part of your point is that McCain is one of those kinds of Republicans. I get that, and, largely, I agree.

You have voted in 9 presidential elections. I have voted in 8. So our comparative experience is not that different. We've just come to very different conclusions about the long term impact of an Obama presidency. Here's my problem with all of this. You're comparing Obama to LBJ/Carter. But I think that LBJ/Carter were small potatoes compared to FDR. While we have in many ways reversed the sins of the LBJ/Carter presidencies, we are still living with FDR's "reforms" today - 75 years after the fact. I believe that Obama's impact on the future political landscape will be more like FDR's, perhaps even worse, than it will be like LBJ/Carter's; and I believe that it will take 50-100 years before we can dig ourselves out from under it, if it can be done at all. In other words, it is likely that the entire rest of my life will be lived under the impact of an Obama presidency. And just as we still live with the fallout from FDR today, I believe that it is likely that my son will live with the effects of an Obama presidency during most of his life. That is a prospect which I find it very difficult to accept, and it is that prospect that makes me willing to work for a McCain victory today, believing that it will be more attainable to recover from the effects of a "semi-conservative" like McCain, than a full on socialist like Obama.

FWIW, I've been kicking around the idea lately of changing my party affiliation from Republican to Independent. I might still vote Republican - if they can get their act together - but I don't want any political party to ever again feel like it can count on my vote. They are going to have to work for it from now on.

Liberty wrote:The last poll I saw had McCain ahead by 19 percent. Your numbers don't add up though . The Rasmusan poll is the only poll that shows such a small lead. Your assumption is if every undecided voter jumped to the Libertarian side that Obama would win. The polls already take into concideration the Libertarian vote Which is one reason that the nuMbers don't add up to 100%.

The Republican party this year has offered us conservatives swill, and their argument is that McCain swill should be easier to swallow than Obama swill. I will vote in conscience for the Libertarian instead of the garbage the Democrats and Republicans are trying to jam down our throats.

Obama is favored by ignorant. Onbce he is elected there will be a great awaking once the ignorant are shown what socialism really means. He likely won't get elected a second term. Most democrats don't.

First, let me say that it is not my intention to be disrespectful, so please don't take what I write next that way, but I absolutely could not disagree with you more. So, let's unpack what you've said here...

First:
You said Obama is favored by the ignorant. Well, that makes somewhat more than half of the nation's voters then to be ignorant. (I prefer the word "deceived.") If their ignorance causes them to favor Obama, and his policies reinforce their ignorance, then they aren't likely to change, are they? Therefore, 4 years from now, virtually all of those voters will still support Obama... ...plus the additional votes he picks up between this election and the next. That's not much of an awakening. It took Russians 80 years to decide they didn't like socialism. Guess what? My mother was there recently, and a huge number of Russians miss the old days and would like to return to a more socialist system. That's not much of an awakening. Most of Europe has been largely socialist for 50 years or more. They still like it that way, and whenever the government of France threatens to cut back entitlements even the tiniest bit, tens of thousands of people riot in the streets and burn cars. That's not much of an awakening. When you institute socialism, you rob the people of the ability to make future decisions in a responsible manner. They never get it back. Maybe they do as a small number of individuals, but not as a people. If Obama gets the chance to institute his socialist policies, they will be here permanently. Even if it does change, it can take many decades, and as the Russian example proves, they often want it back after they've gotten rid of it. Imagining that people will change their socialist tendencies once they've had a taste of the real thing is wishful thinking.

Second:
The Rasmussen polls are polls of likely voters, which means a heck of a lot more than other polls, and which is why they are so respected by both major parties. It's like the difference between asking all gun owners if they prefer Glocks or 1911s, or asking just those who are most likely to actually buy one or the other 3 weeks from now. The second group will give you a far more accurate answer, because they are the ones actually putting their money where their mouth is. Any poll showing a McCain lead of 19% is just plain loopy because it is not based on likely voters, so you're basing your hope in that regard on a chimera. I realize that the polls take Libertarians into account, but if a reliable poll shows a McCain lead of 9%, and your argument persuades the most conservative elements of the Republican voters to do what you are doing because they are not satisfied with McCain (and many of us are not entirely satisfied with him), then that 9% dwindles to nothing, and Barr's smooth talking has given the state over to Obama. And, any reputable pollster will tell you that their number has a margin of error of +/- 3-4%. So, if McCain's lead shrinks in Texas to 3%, then an Obama victory in Texas is well within the margin of error, so McCain doesn't really need to lose all 9% to risk losing the state.

Third:
You're also assuming that, if Obama gets elected, the people who elected him won't like what they get. That's a false premise. They are voting for him precisely because he stands unapologetically for what he says he stands for - even if he doesn't like to use the "socialism" word. They are going to be delighted with him, because they stand for exactly the same things they do. It is conservatives who aren't going to like what they get, and they already know he's a train wreck waiting to happen. BTW, I have heard a number of experienced political strategists, liberal and conservative, who actually work to elect electable candidates state that they believe that an Obama administration will last eight years, but that a McCain administration will likely only last 4 years - which would give conservatives time to lift up another candidate who has better credentials. Their opinion is based on actual working experience. Yours is based on wishful thinking. Mine is based on a healthy fear of Obama.

Fourth:
Who are those Obama voters comprised of? They are the 40% who don't pay any taxes at all anyway of the 95% that Obama always talks about giving a tax break to, who are going to receive a handout of money they haven't worked for, paid for by the money he has ripped off from those who actually paid taxes. They are every single grievance group of racial minority, who in the aggregate, comprise 40-50% of the general population and who have been successfully exploited by Democrats in the politics of racial division and class warfare. They are are not going to reject Obama's brand of socialism because their wallets will be fatter because of it without doing any additional work. Do you think for one minute that, on a political landscape in which playing the race card is now the standard tactic whenever someone cannot confront logic with logic, that logic will ever again have a chance in electoral politics? Nope. This particular election season has forever changed the way politics is done in this country. An honorable candidate with a wealth of good ideas cannot get elected in America anymore if his ideas depend on the personal responsibility of the electorate in order to work. As a libertarian, you should be doubly aware of that fact.

Obama's administration will excuse people from the consequences of their actions or lack thereof and will no longer require it from any of them. In fact, he has already tried to redefine personal responsibility, with some degree of success by the way, as the duty to pay higher taxes on the part of the wealthy so that the less wealthy don't have to be responsible. You don't like what republicans and democrats are forcing down your throat right now? What 'til Obama's president. He's going to force it on you, but it won't be down your throat, it will involve some other part of your anatomy. Once a sitting president has taught 150 million people that they no longer have to be responsible for their own conditions because government will do it for them, do you seriously think that the next president can ever convince them of anything different? It ain't gonna happen. Not in 4 years. Not in 16 years. That opportunity will have sailed for distant ports, and it ain't a comin' back.

In Conclusion:
So you can go ahead and give your vote to Barr if that's what floats your boat (even though voting 3rd party is functionally the same thing as giving it to Obama), but that choice ignores boots on the ground political reality, and reality makes no allowances for yours or anybody else's wishful thinking. Reality just is what it is. In a close election (and this one does appear to be tightening up), if McCain loses it will be the fault of conservative people who did exactly what you are advocating. Welcome to Obama's world. I hope you like it, because you'll never again see the world you want. It will have been permanently altered. You're not going to have the chance to change it back in 4 or 8 years. That's not a realistic expectation because the sin of socialism will have already been released from Pandora's box and set fully into motion (see the Russia example above). It is far easier to say "No, you can't have that" than it is to take back what has already been given away. Similarly it is almost impossible to regain a right that has already been lost. Remember that the Democrats are very confident, with some reason, that they will pick up a filibuster proof super-majority in Congress this go around. And, they will have a sympathetic president if Obama is elected. What are you going to do when Obama's "common sense" solutions say you can't have a CHL anymore? What are you going to do when Obama's "common sense" solutions make you surrender your AR/AK? What are you going to do when Obama says you can't buy centerfire rifle ammunition for hunting anymore because it is too powerful, and you don't need something that powerful? What are you going to do when Obama says you can only own a revolver, in .22 long rifle, and it must be stored at the local police station, because all semi-automatic pistols have been reclassified as machine guns? (Don't believe it? Look at DC's gun laws, which Obama supports.) They will have the political muscle to enforce all those things, and there won't be a single thing that any conservative can do about it - short of an armed insurrection. A Republican president with the power of a veto is the one thing that stands in the way of all this.

After you've lost all those things, are you going to come back here and opine that in 4 years, you'll get all those rights back? Ask the English and the Australians how well getting their gun rights back worked out for them. In case you've forgotten, it didn't work out well for them at all - and that is the vision that Obama has for this country. He wants us to be exactly like Europe. Speaking of Europe, what are you going to do when an Obama administration makes preaching what the Old Testament says about homosexuality into a crime of hate speech, like it is in Switzerland and Germany, where a pastor can be imprisoned for it. Talk about "failed policies!" That is what voting your bedrock conservative conscience will do for this nation during this particular election cycle if you can't see you're way to compromising with the more moderate elements of the Republican party even just for this election.

At almost any other time, I would say go ahead. I might disagree with you, but vive la difference. I just don't believe we have that luxury this time.

I'll stop here. The Bible was certainly right that "Pride goeth before the fall." Like I said, I call myself a conservative, but I certainly hope that conservative pride doesn't take us to the fall. Because we'll never recover from it.

That's my 2¢. I realize that I probably didn't say one thing to get you to change your mind. Again, I meant none of the above in disrespect. I just profoundly disagree with you.

Kalrog wrote:I think you missed the point - because it is all about the electoral college, a vote for Barr in Texas is NOT a vote for Obama. It might play out that way in Ohio or Florida, but not in Texas where the electoral votes are all but locked up for the R candidate. This might also not be the case in smaller/local elections.

The point is that we have a horrible person running in the "R" camp, but if we keep voting for them because they are the "lesser of 2 evils", then the R party has no reason to change as they can count on our vote. But if it looks like they need to court us in order to assure our vote, then maybe we can actually get some true conservative / smaller government people back into the party and/or platform. A high Libertarian turnout says that much more loudly than not voting at all. Voting for McCain doesn't encourage the needed changes at all. Of course, having 3+ viable parties in most elections would be very nice.

Kalrog, I appreciate what you're saying, but I couldn't disagree more. It's a false strategy. As I posted above, Rasmussen shows McCain up by 9% (in a fluctuating and volatile polling enviroment). If 10% of Texas votes libertarian this year, OBAMA GETS THE STATE'S ELECTORAL VOTES!! That's just plain old math. There's no way around it. So the more you encourage Texas libertarians to vote for Barr instead of McCain, the more you encourage an Obama win for the state's electoral votes. Your vote is not without consequence. If your strategy blows up in your face and Obama wins Texas, it will not be the fault of Texans who voted Democrat - because they are currently behind by 9%. It will not be the fault of Texans who voted Republican - because they voted to maintain that 9% lead. However, it will be the fault of Texans who voted third party - because they voted to squander the Republican lead.

I think it boils down to whether or not you believe that an Obama win will result in irreparable damage to the nation. Understand that, if he wins, Obama's administration is likely to last 8 long years. Do you think that you will still have the right to a CHL 8 years down the road into an Obama administration? If you currently own an AR variant, M1A1, AK variant, FN-FAL variant, do you think you will still lawfully own one 8 years down the road with an Obama administration? Do you think that, 8 years from now, centerfire rifle ammunition will still be legal if Obama wins? Do you think that FTF transactions will still be legal in Texas 8 years onto an Obama administration? Do you think that a Democrat supermajority with a Democrat president won't pass the unions' desired "card check" law? Do you think they won't pass the "fairness doctrine" for broadcast media? Do you think your taxes will go up or down if Obama is elected? Do you think the Supreme Court won't be packed with liberals who will rule by judicial fiat for the next 30 years?

You're willing to pursue that strategy in the face of all these things, but not willing to take ownership of the consequences of how you vote? And by the way, Barr isn't running in Texas only, and those will be the consequences for any Libertarian who votes for Barr in this particular election. It is a luxury the nation cannot afford.

I echo what tboesche said. That is what I meant when I posted this thread about the ACORN platform and Obama's being inextricably wedded to it.

McCain was not my first pick for the GOP nomination, but the fact is that he wound up getting it. Like tboesche said, it's going to be either McCain or Obama in the White House. There is no other choice with a realistic chance of getting elected. Right now today, if the most recent polls are to be believed, McCain is barely even in the battle ground states, and behind in almost every other state. However, that is actually an improvement for him from just a week ago. In other words, things appear to be shifting in his direction as the last days of the campaign wind down. Even so, at best McCain would win by the very slimmest of margins; whereas an Obama win could potentially be a blowout.

As I said in the other thread:

Think of this before casting your vote for anybody else except McCain/Palin. Obama supports and is driven by the ACORN agenda. This document proves that ACORN is a socialist organization. Therefore, Obama supports and is driven by a socialist agenda. That will drive his budgetary plans, his tax plans, his healthcare plans, his Supreme Court nominations, his assaults on your gun rights, your freedom of speech, ALL of it. If you are a conservative or libertarian whose conscience and heart may not reside with McCain/Palin because they are not conservative/libertarian enough, this platform below is what you will be helping to bring about if you vote for anyone else next month. If Obama/ACORN win, may God help us all, because we are going to badly need it.

While I was never a Barr supporter, I am more conservative than McCain, and like I said above, he would not have been my first choice. BUT... he is the only one currently in the race who has even a prayer of defeating Obama - and it is absolutely critical that Obama be defeated.

Barr doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting elected. Period. If you cast your vote for Barr (or any other third party candidate), the net effect will be to take a vote away from McCain. That net deduction has the mathematical effect of putting Obama up by one vote. That's just the cold hard math of it. Putting Obama up by one vote takes you one vote further away from what you want out of government. If you want to know how that will impact you, go read my thread which I linked above.

On the other hand, if you vote for McCain, you will get at least a small part of what you want, and you will have contributed to staving off the catastrophe that an Obama victory would mean. Even former Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern thinks Obama is too liberal. McGovern, by the way, is undergoing his own conversion to libertarianism.

Your vote, my vote, anybody's vote, is more than just an expression of political conscience. It has real and measurable consequences. Those consequences are expressed in the changes to the nation following any presidential election. If you like Obama's vision for the nation, and agree with his plan for achieving it, go ahead and vote him. Neither Barr's nor McCain's platforms are the same as Obama's. However, your vote for Barr's platform will have the consequence of promoting Obama's. Being realistic, there aren't enough libertarian votes in the state of Texas to swing the state's electoral votes away from either Obama or McCain and toward Barr. There just aren't. But let's assume that 10% of the state's voters are libertarians... ...the race between republican and democrat voters is tighter than that. Right now, RealClearPolitics.com quotes Rasmussen as showing McCain up by 9% in the state. If all libertarians and disaffected republicans go vote for Barr or some other third party candidate, Obama probably wins Texas - and there went that pro-gun majority you were counting on to make it safe for you personally to vote for Barr. However, as of today, RealClearPolitics.com shows Obama up by 7.6% nationally. If that holds, then Obama wins by a landslide.

In politics as in other endeavors, the law of unintended consequences applies. There is no escaping it, and it is unrealistic to think that you can. You may not intend an Obama win, but if enough disaffected conservatives vote third party instead of Republican this year, an Obama win will nevertheless be the consequence. The responsibility for that consequence will lie squarely on the shoulders of those who voted for either Obama directly, or for a third party candidate, and not upon the shoulders of those who acknowledged the political realities, held their noses, and voted for the win.

What you are proposing isn't a strategy, it's a protest. Strategies are actually calculated to win. Voting for Barr isn't calculating to win. The reality is that voting for Barr is voting for the spoiler. I am pleading with you to reconsider.