NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, three weeks ago this site was pumping with speculation about Obama and the Presidency - now no thread is leading with him. Therefore I want to put a question to you "Whew! We can be proud to be American again" lovers of truth, justice and the American way.......
Don't you think that a handover of two and a half months is just a teensy bit too long. In Australia, the UK and most other countries the Prime Minister/President is sworn in the next day!

Not really, I rather like the idea that the president knows what's going on and has his team in place the minute the swearing in is done.

Yes, the original date was made for those times back in the day when travel was difficult and all that fun stuff, but now-a-days it leaves a bit of time for on the job training.

Yeah but here, you have to go through the ever important 'peaceful transition of power' which takes a long time to initiate the new guy into all the super secret government stuff that goes on here. Besides, Obama has to have time to gather up all his crowd and get them appointed, or ready to appoint anyway, and although I do love my country... the beurocracy is at it's all time peak of ridiculous. lol

Thomas Friedman made this point yesterday, that given the current financial conditions, a lame-duck presidency for two more months is one of the biggest problems.

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/23/opinion/edfriedman.php)

From which...

Yet, it is obvious that President Bush can't mobilize the tools to defuse them - a massive stimulus program to improve infrastructure and create jobs, a broad-based homeowner initiative to limit foreclosures and stabilize housing prices, and therefore mortgage assets, more capital for bank balance sheets and, most importantly, a huge injection of optimism and confidence that we can and will pull out of this with a new economic team at the helm.

The last point is something only a new President Obama can inject. What ails us right now is as much a loss of confidence - in our financial system and our leadership - as anything else. I have no illusions that Obama's arrival on the scene will be a magic wand, but it would help.

Right now there is something deeply dysfunctional, bordering on scandalously irresponsible, in the fractious way our political elite are behaving - with business as usual in the most unusual economic moment of our lifetimes. They don't seem to understand: Our financial system is imperiled.

Why not just let things happen properly -_-

Not really, I rather like the idea that the president knows what's going on and has his team in place the minute the swearing in is done.

Yes, the original date was made for those times back in the day when travel was difficult and all that fun stuff, but now-a-days it leaves a bit of time for on the job training.

And a leaving president in corporation pockets to install his buddies and rules which will do their level best to stymie the next one.

Well I hate to burst everyone's Bush bubble, but the man isn't soley responsible for our economic situation here. I'm all for a fresh start, but Bush bashing is kinda getting old over the last few years - even for me - and I don't even like the guy. I also think these stimulus and bail out packages are the dumbest ideas any of 'em have ever come up with.

Any time we've tried to 'bail out' things in the past it has always failed and caused more problems than we started out with. Just let the market correct itself, stop hitting the panic button - and that will help a lot.

II've always owned Chevy's, but hey... whatever happened to bankruptcy, reorganization, and starting over? They're big enough... if they are that bad off... sorry guess what? You shoulda planned better.

And a leaving president in corporation pockets to install his buddies and rules which will do their level best to stymie the next one.
True, but that also means a continuation of government so you don't have a president spending all of his time undoing every single rule his predecessor did and people doing business with the government can expect things to mostly stay the same as opposed to some of the wild swings that happen in other counties.

Well I hate to burst everyone's Bush bubble, but the man isn't soley responsible for our economic situation here.

Doesn't really matter whether he is or isn't, the problem is that the market's in limbo and will probably remain that way until at least March now.

If George Bush wants to really help America, he'd be calling Barack Obama in now and jointly fixing the problem, it would help his legacy a great deal in terms of putting aside politics and working for the best interests of America as a whole.

Barack Obama should be calling for it, the fact is that the economy is in crisis and needs urgent attention.

You know, three weeks ago this site was pumping with speculation about Obama and the Presidency - now no thread is leading with him. Therefore I want to put a question to you "Whew! We can be proud to be American again" lovers of truth, justice and the American way.......
Don't you think that a handover of two and a half months is just a teensy bit too long. In Australia, the UK and most other countries the Prime Minister/President is sworn in the next day!

Which is why Australia is the globe-influencing world power that we all know it to be.




Okay, that was a bit harsh, but seriously, it's been this way for the life of the Presidency, and you're complaining about it NOW? And what's with "we can be proud to be American again" nonsense? I was and am as proud as I ever was. I take no sense of personal honor in the actions of my government because, just like you, I've got one voice in a chorus of millions and what I think about the President means less than nothing. If I were a fool whose personal feelings of patriotism rose and fell with the Administration in charge, I'd need Prozac. The election of Barack Obama, as historical as it may be, means absolutely nothing to me, personally. I'm just as proud now to have had the good fortune to be born in the US as I was on November 3rd, the day my father died.

That's something else I'm always puzzled by: "proud to be an American". It's not an accomplishment. I did nothing. I mean, unless we're speculating that I, in the spirit realm, chose both egg and sperm, combined them, shot myself into the zygote, built myself a body afloat in amniotic fluid, and when my term was up, thrust myself out of the womb and crawled out of the birth canal like John Goodman digging his way out of prison in Raising Arizona -- what did I actually do? I suppose my parents did the work, and mostly my mother at that. I'm happy here. I like it here. I love the geography, topography and much of the culture of the US. Just not really overwhelmingly proud of having been conceived and delivered here.

Aha, I've got the new slogan: I'm proud my parents fucked in America!

How's that?

Well it was precisely because of useless self-serving politicians in the past that the world has these dinosaur car companies that are making effing hummers when they should have retooled years ago. No, don't just blame Bush, blame the whole stinking lot of colluding corrupt CEOs and presidents who were scrratching each others' backs ands encouraging all this waste and inefficiency. Yes the American people let it happen but why prolong the agony?
Why let that ignoramus continue in power for another couple of months?

True, but that also means a continuation of government so you don't have a president spending all of his time undoing every single rule his predecessor did and people doing business with the government can expect things to mostly stay the same as opposed to some of the wild swings that happen in other counties.

Maybe, but if you took the American government, turned it upside down and shook it for a bit, what sort of dead weight do you think might fall out?

Ooh! I like your slogan and your spirited original reply Intagelon. (It wasn't directed at me was it?)
Actually, your slogan reminded me of the reason W.C. Fields gave for never drinking water:
"Because fish fuck in it!"

But back to the question, the only reasons I've read to keep this Jan 20th inaugration nonsense going are:
1, Tradition (Great song in "Fiddler on the Roof" but a crappy reason unless you're a fundamentalist.
2. For a smooth handover. (Guys we're talking George the Chimp here! Why prolong the agony?)

Maybe, but if you took the American government, turned it upside down and shook it for a bit, what sort of dead weight do you think might fall out?
Well, what do you want? A government that is fast and responsive with the downside being that it WILL respond to every little bump, perhaps wildly, or one that is slow, but means much more stability?

I think the thing is that the government at the federal level was designed to work just enough to keep it working, but inefficiently enough to keep it from changing on the whim of one man or one situation.

Doesn't really matter whether he is or isn't, the problem is that the market's in limbo and will probably remain that way until at least March now.

If George Bush wants to really help America, he'd be calling Barack Obama in now and jointly fixing the problem, it would help his legacy a great deal in terms of putting aside politics and working for the best interests of America as a whole.

Barack Obama should be calling for it, the fact is that the economy is in crisis and needs urgent attention.

Now that is something I can totally agree with. Both parts.

I will add though that I wish the media would stop with the dramatizations about the stock market and the crisis itself. Possibly even report the rises in the market and give a positive spin for a change.

Although it is admittedly not the entire issue, whether people want to admitt it or not - the more you holler about destruction - the more people will start pulling out their cash - then more - and more and more. Even my Dad did last week. *face-hand*

2. For a smooth handover. (Guys we're talking George the Chimp here! Why prolong the agony?)
Hmmm... could it be because the idea of no one knowing what's going on in the middle of two wars is worse?

Not really, I rather like the idea that the president knows what's going on and has his team in place the minute the swearing in is done.

Yes, the original date was made for those times back in the day when travel was difficult and all that fun stuff, but now-a-days it leaves a bit of time for on the job training.

If I recall, we've even moved the date up from March.

Now I must confess the real reason I started this thread. To tell this joke:
One sunny day in January, 2009 an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."

Now I must confess the real reason I started this thread. To tell this joke:
One sunny day in January, 2009 an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."

Old joke is old.

Now I must confess the real reason I started this thread. To tell this joke:
One sunny day in January, 2009 an old man approached the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The old man said, "Okay", and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here."
The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"
The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow, Sir."
*Groan* That joke was old 8 years ago when I heard it about Presidents Clinton and Bush!

Well, what do you want? A government that is fast and responsive with the downside being that it WILL respond to every little bump, perhaps wildly, or one that is slow, but means much more stability?

I think the thing is that the government at the federal level was designed to work just enough to keep it working, but inefficiently enough to keep it from changing on the whim of one man or one situation.

The problem is that the government is the equivalent of a stable but leaky boat. Sure, it's stable, but corruption is leaking in through the seams, and before too long, it'll end up sinking. You could run around patching the holes, but there's too many, and eventually, they'll spring up again, maybe years after the only one interested in doing the fixing is gone.

Having a grand upset/reversal/clean slate option can be sometimes the only way to fix a mess that has gotten beyond patchwork fixing.

Yup NAS - it's time for a new boat (maybe a life raft.)
George has got no ideas for:
1. ending either of the wars he started
2. fixing the economy
3. saving the planet from global warming (apart from allowing transport and industry to collapse - hmmm! a nifty idea but a bit drastic. George did you think that up all by yourself?

Oh damn... ook okokok... but please. Global Warming?! Oh gawd noooooes please no. Not here too... lol

Need to be better to our environment? Absolutely... Global Warming? Oh geez...

Some people believe in Jesus, some in Mohammed. Yes they were real people, I believe that but I'm not going to believe in the Bible or the Koran. At least Global Warming has the majority of the world's RESPECTED scientists telling its an absolute fact.

George the Chimp doesn't believe in Global warming but he does believe in Intelligent design (shit it must have bypassed him then!)

I don't know, I kind of like giving the new president time to really prepare himself to take office, and likewise for the incumbent who will be vacating the premises come January. It's hard to believe that it's been only eight years though; I bet it has to be tough to give up that kind of power, even if you're as unpopular as Bush and know your chances of major new policies are pretty much zero.

sure bush isn't single handedly responsible for anything, but the perspective he represents, and his puppet masters who really represent it, however much little more then a poster boy shrubry the simple himself might otherwise be, are.

does that mean the obama team is going to be able to wave some magic wand and make everything all better? of course not. but i think, hope, their first hundred days after the enauguration, will be at least to some degree gratifying to watch.

other then mulling over cabinet appointees and potential cabinet appointees, there's not much to go on untill the big day. the long list of clinton retreads on the transition team lists has a lot of us hoping for real improvements in forign and domestic policy a wee bit on the sceptical side already. we, or at least i, am still glad it isn't/wasn't mccain and palin. but its going to take more then chainging the lead horses to see signifigant chainges in bussiness as usual.

Some people believe in Jesus, some in Mohammed. Yes they were real people, I believe that but I'm not going to believe in the Bible or the Koran. At least Global Warming has the majority of the world's RESPECTED scientists telling its an absolute fact.


Oh sheesh... ok, this is one of those can drag on and on, but I can't help it here. *majority of the world's* respected scientist's no. Majority of scientists you get shoved in front of your face, sure.

The plain and simple fact is we are already entering a cooling cycle. We've done passed our Hot phase which is yet another cycle we go through every so often on this planet and that's about it.

I'm a HAM radio operator, and I do a lot of work with satellite bands. The so called 'hole in the ozone' has long since repaired itself as of a couple of *years* ago. The normal, small, moving area over the south pole is all that's left just like in the late 90's to mid 00's.

There wasn't even anything to "repair" - it's just a cycle. There are satellite and atmospheric charts that go back for decades if you'd like to look them up. I've gotta get some sleep here before long, but I'll be happy to post the ARRL layer maps for you sometime - if you're interested. They're actually kind of interesting. And pretty irrefutable.

Anyway I know no matter what evidence no matter how scientific and broad spectrum I or anyone else can provide - true believers of GW won't be dissuaded, but I had to at least put forth the effort :D

cya!

I'm a HAM radio operator, and I do a lot of work with satellite bands.
Hmm... The words of the majority of climate scientists in the world vs. a HAM radio operator...

Oh yeah, I KNOW who to trust here! :rolleyes:

Hmm... The words of the majority of climate scientists in the world vs. a HAM radio operator...

Oh yeah, I KNOW who to trust here! :rolleyes:

Who do you think they get half of their their data, and most of their verification data *from*? lol - at least the serious ones who aren't playing host to the GW fever.

Amateur radio operators are responsible for a large majority of world emergency communications and weather monitoring reporting.

We've had instrument parcels on the last couple of space probes and have numerous dedicated devices and monitoring equipment on satellites all around the globe.

There's a reason we take up such a large portion of the FCC's bands. :)

EDIT: I should say that I am not inferring *all* HAM radio operators are experts in atmospheric phenomenon, weather patterns, etc. In fact I would say a vast majority these days are mostly gabbers and emergency communications operators. However there is still a large population of active Amature radio operators that dedicate their spare time, and even make a full time partnership recording detailed information for many different scientific projects. Heck, even NASA uses a few of 'em regularly outside of their organization.

You know, three weeks ago this site was pumping with speculation about Obama and the Presidency - now no thread is leading with him. Therefore I want to put a question to you "Whew! We can be proud to be American again" lovers of truth, justice and the American way.......
Don't you think that a handover of two and a half months is just a teensy bit too long. In Australia, the UK and most other countries the Prime Minister/President is sworn in the next day!

Sorry but when was the last time a leader of a party was sworn in the day after an election in Australia?

Regardless I see your point, and it is a bit long, but I suppose that is what happens when you have fixed terms.

Which is why Australia is the globe-influencing world power that we all know it to be.

lol, :D

Aha, I've got the new slogan: I'm proud my parents fucked in America!

How's that?

Actually there is nothing wrong with that, and pretty much sends the same message

The problem is that the government is the equivalent of a stable but leaky boat. Sure, it's stable, but corruption is leaking in through the seams, and before too long, it'll end up sinking. You could run around patching the holes, but there's too many, and eventually, they'll spring up again, maybe years after the only one interested in doing the fixing is gone.

Having a grand upset/reversal/clean slate option can be sometimes the only way to fix a mess that has gotten beyond patchwork fixing.
We have one, it's called a constitutional convention and there is provision within the current convention on how to call one.

Who do you think they get half of their their data, and most of their verification data *from*? lol - at least the serious ones who aren't playing host to the GW fever.

Amateur radio operators are responsible for a large majority of world emergency communications and weather monitoring reporting.

We've had instrument parcels on the last couple of space probes and have numerous dedicated devices and monitoring equipment on satellites all around the globe.

There's a reason we take up such a large portion of the FCC's bands. :)

EDIT: I should say that I am not inferring *all* HAM radio operators are experts in atmospheric phenomenon, weather patterns, etc. In fact I would say a vast majority these days are mostly gabbers and emergency communications operators. However there is still a large population of active Amature radio operators that dedicate their spare time, and even make a full time partnership recording detailed information for many different scientific projects. Heck, even NASA uses a few of 'em regularly outside of their organization.
Wonderful, and as soon as you show me your credentials in terms of degrees awarded from major universities in relevant fields and peer reviewed papers in respected science journals, I'll start taking your words seriously. Until then, at best you sound like a research assistant. Now, I've BEEN a research assistant. I've help collect and sort data, that didn't give me any knowledge better than the professor doing the actual research or his peers.

Nice slapping down of poor old Hapless the Hammie there Nervun. Oooh! I love that cold, logical brutality as you whip away his credentials.....
Could you beat me like that too. Please! Please!

As for you mr Blou, I really wasn't here to say,
"Australia! Australia! We love you ! Amen!" Thou in this convention (of the candidate-elect being sworn in A.S.A. P. I do think that the US is a trifle behind tthe times - and I'm grateful to the sage who reminded us that that was because it took the creaky covered wagons to trek to Washington DC to see the wonderful event. Airfoce One does indeed take less time.
I think that it a convention that the American people could choose to eliminate (and what's with gallons and pints, miles and inches?? In Australia (the rising world power) we dispensed with avoirdupois in the 1960s at about the ssame time as we adopted the dollat (C'mon America, meet us halfway here!)

As for you mr Blou, I really wasn't here to say,
"Australia! Australia! We love you ! Amen!" Thou in this convention (of the candidate-elect being sworn in A.S.A. P. I do think that the US is a trifle behind tthe times - and I'm grateful to the sage who reminded us that that was because it took the creaky covered wagons to trek to Washington DC to see the wonderful event. Airfoce One does indeed take less time.
I think that it a convention that the American people could choose to eliminate (and what's with gallons and pints, miles and inches?? In Australia (the rising world power) we dispensed with avoirdupois in the 1960s at about the ssame time as we adopted the dollat (C'mon America, meet us halfway here!)

Say what? Sometimes you go on strange tangents there. But what do you mean you weren't really here to say?

what a weird thread this has turned out to be!

i would love to have george bush out of the white house (and in prison where he belongs) but its not practical.

every top job in the federal government is going to change. foreign policy positions that were so strong in the campaign have to be tempered with the secrets about what is really going on. they have to pick out bedrooms for the kids and decide where to send them to school.

mr obama needs to hit the ground running on jan 20 and to do that he has to have all his ducks in a row (a nice row of running ducks, not too fast but confidence inspiriring)

when billl clinton had been in office for 3 months, the world trade center was attacked. when george bush had been in office for 9 months the world trade center was destroyed. barack obama has have his people in place if he is going to be able to prevent a similar attack in his first months in office.

Well I guess there are some good reasons for Obama to take a couple of months to organise his Cabinet etc.

Blou, sorry that my earlier posting was a bit hard to follow. My meaning was: "I wasn't here to say that Australia was necessarily better than the US in this" (as in all things - Oops! There I go again)...just joking guys! Honest!

Cheney resigns. Bush nominates Obama as the new Vice-President. Then he resigns.

In your dreams Car City!
Ouch! Detroit must be hurting at the moment - commiserations!

Cheney resigns. Bush nominates Obama as the new Vice-President. Then he resigns.
I still think the biggest problem will be finding Cheney and getting him to leave the dungeons. :tongue:

I still think the biggest problem will be finding Cheney and getting him to leave the dungeons. :tongue:
as long as its after sunset and there is no full moon, it wont be so hard.

Just a reminder, folks - Obama isn't president-elect until the electoral college meets in January. He can't take office now, no matter how much you may want him to.

Just a reminder, folks - Obama isn't president-elect until the electoral college meets in January. He can't take office now, no matter how much you may want him to.

He might as well.

Just a reminder, folks - Obama isn't president-elect until the electoral college meets in January. He can't take office now, no matter how much you may want him to.

He certainly COULD, under the scenario I outlined (not that there's a snowball chance).

He certainly COULD, under the scenario I outlined (not that there's a snowball chance).
considering how busy bush is "embedding" his political appointments into top civil service jobs in the various departments, i say that snowball has a better chance.

Just a reminder, folks - Obama isn't president-elect until the electoral college meets in January. He can't take office now, no matter how much you may want him to.

Dang it, can't we get the Electoral college to meet sooner. lol

Who else thinks that Bush is just sitting there letting the American economy tank with a look of idiocy on his face? Having a lame duck in an economic crises is a bad thing. I wish that it could be as easy as kicking said lame duck out and putting in a leader commited in sorting this whole mess out.

bush is an idiot

You know, three weeks ago this site was pumping with speculation about Obama and the Presidency - now no thread is leading with him. Therefore I want to put a question to you "Whew! We can be proud to be American again" lovers of truth, justice and the American way.......
Don't you think that a handover of two and a half months is just a teensy bit too long. In Australia, the UK and most other countries the Prime Minister/President is sworn in the next day!
Yeah, but they're little countries that don't have much to do. Us really big and important countries need more time for an orderly turnover.

Besides, we need that time to get all the electors together and vote for the real President.

bush is an idiot

Man, how are you going to spend your life when Bush is a President emeritus?

Yeah, but they're little countries that don't have much to do. Us really big and important countries need more time for an orderly turnover.
I'm sure even you Big Important Countries can manage to organise an orderly turnover, considering that candidates have four years to put together their list of presidential appointees and prepare for assuming office. It shouldn't take more than a few weeks, unless the results are disputed in court.

I'm sure even you Big Important Countries can manage to organise an orderly turnover, considering that candidates have four years to put together their list of presidential appointees and prepare for assuming office. It shouldn't take more than a few weeks, unless the results are disputed in court.
I don't know... it takes two years now just for the campaign. And you're right about the recounts and litigation. How can we be sure to have enough time for that if we shorten the transition period?

Besides, how can the outgoing President be sure he's pardoning all the right people, making all the right regulations, etc, if he only has hours to vacate the office.

You know, three weeks ago this site was pumping with speculation about Obama and the Presidency - now no thread is leading with him. Therefore I want to put a question to you "Whew! We can be proud to be American again" lovers of truth, justice and the American way.......
Don't you think that a handover of two and a half months is just a teensy bit too long. In Australia, the UK and most other countries the Prime Minister/President is sworn in the next day!

Read the US Constitution.

Read the US Constitution.

It says anything of what Collectivity can and cannot think about how the handover should be the done?

however i want

You know the Constitution COULD be reviewed. The Dems with a bit of Republican support could eliminate the "covered wagons must bring in the Montanan and New Mexican electors" and insert something like "The swearing-in will take place on the next working day that the President-elect has garnered a majority of the US electoral college votes"
Admittedly I'm no Constitutional lawyer but what are the problems if it's fair to both parties? What have the Republicans got to lose by th echange.

Also, we don't have electoral colleges in Australia. Why have them? Oh I know - tradition!
Tradition! Tradition! Who day and night must scramble for a living...."

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

You know the Constitution COULD be reviewed. The Dems with a bit of Republican support could eliminate the "covered wagons must bring in the Montanan and New Mexican electors" and insert something like "The swearing-in will take place on the next working day that the President-elect has garnered a majority of the US electoral college votes"
Admittedly I'm no Constitutional lawyer but what are the problems if it's fair to both parties? What have the Republicans got to lose by th echange.

Also, we don't have electoral colleges in Australia. Why have them? Oh I know - tradition!
Tradition! Tradition! Who day and night must scramble for a living...."

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

It's not tradition: it's the law and the entire basis of the American federal government.

The EC exists because of the US legislative system: every state has no less than 2 Senators and 1 House Representative. This was deliberately done in order to make sure that the large states do not run roughshod over the smaller states.
Likewise, people do NOT elect the President, that is a power reserved to the states.

Any ideas of "reforming" the EC require totally changing the US legislative branch, which would require a new Constitution. Good luck with that.

It's not tradition: it's the law and the entire basis of the American federal government.

The EC exists because of the US legislative system: every state has no less than 2 Senators and 1 House Representative. This was deliberately done in order to make sure that the large states do not run roughshod over the smaller states.
Likewise, people do NOT elect the President, that is a power reserved to the states.

Any ideas of "reforming" the EC require totally changing the US legislative branch, which would require a new Constitution. Good luck with that.Um, no.

The Electoral College is quite specifically independent from the legislative branch. Getting rid of it or reforming it may require constitutional change, but by no means would one have to totally change the US legislative branch in order to do so.

Um, no.

The Electoral College is quite specifically independent from the legislative branch. Getting rid of it or reforming it may require constitutional change, but by no means would one have to totally change the US legislative branch in order to do so.

Um, no. The EC is exactly the size of Congress, and while it is MOSTLY independent OF Congress, it is still not wholly:
Article 2, Section 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
...
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Note that even the 12th Amendment didn't change this basic setup: the states, not the people, elect the Prez.

...if the EC were to be changed, it would require the small states voting against their own best interests. Ergo, it is a dead issue. :)

Um, no. The EC is exactly the size of Congress, and while it is MOSTLY independent OF Congress, it is still not wholly:
Article 2, Section 1:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
...
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Note that even the 12th Amendment didn't change this basic setup. Independent of congress. Size isn't, but the College and the electors are.
...if the EC were to be changed, it would require the small states voting against their own best interests. Ergo, it is a dead issue. :)Which means something entirely different than:
Any ideas of "reforming" the EC require totally changing the US legislative branch,...
Ergo, you may have to end up changing the way congress works to stop the few smaller states from blocking it on those grounds (there's like 5, which as you may note, constitutes 10% of the senate, and a whole lot less of the House, so them "blocking it" is unlikely), and thus achieve a reform or scrapping of the Electoral College, but there's no requirement. If all states suddenly agreed, there'd be nothing stopping them from changing it.

So if Bush gets assassinated now, Cheney would become President rather than Obama until January - is that right?

So if Bush gets assassinated now, Cheney would become President rather than Obama until January - is that right?
yup.

...

So if Bush gets assassinated now, Cheney would become President rather than Obama until January - is that right?

Yup. That's why Bush hasn't been rubbed out - no one wants a Cheney presidency for any length of time. :p

Yup. That's why Bush hasn't been rubbed out - no one wants a Cheney presidency for any length of time. :p

A defense more potent than any secret service or bulletproof jacket. Biden fulfills a similar role for Obama.

A defense more potent than any secret service or bulletproof jacket. Biden fulfills a similar role for Obama.

Hey, I didn't want to be the one to say that. Thanks. :p

Really, the Lame Duck period has already been reduced. iirc, the prez didn't take office until March. The transition period does offer advantages - there's a lot more time for the incoming administration to be assembled, and a good while for the incoming administration to be brought up to speed on all the issues so he's better prepared when he officially takes office.

Bush should resign and let Cheney take over. He should then appoint Condi Rice as his new V.P. and then he should resign and let her take over as the first African American and female president.

:D

Ssshhh, it takes a looooong time to properly exorcise Bush & Cheney. :p

Independent of congress. Size isn't, but the College and the electors are.
Which means something entirely different than:

Ergo, you may have to end up changing the way congress works to stop the few smaller states from blocking it on those grounds (there's like 5, which as you may note, constitutes 10% of the senate, and a whole lot less of the House, so them "blocking it" is unlikely), and thus achieve a reform or scrapping of the Electoral College, but there's no requirement. If all states suddenly agreed, there'd be nothing stopping them from changing it.

You need a new Amendment, and that takes it to be passed by Congress and THEN ratification of 75% of the states. That's 38 states. Ergo, a dead issue. There's simply no way that any of the states with few EC votes (say, 10 or less) would vote to have even LESS say!

The ratification by 75% of the states is indeed the stumbling block.
You get an A for Constitutional Law Makreich.
While many will see this as unfair - as candidates with a majority of popular votes will still fall short on electoral college votes, this will be seen as necessary to preserve states' rights. It is the United STATES after all.

You need a new Amendment, and that takes it to be passed by Congress and THEN ratification of 75% of the states. No shit.
That's 38 states. Ergo, a dead issue. Irrelevant. What you said came across as saying that Congress would have to be changed before it was even theoretically possible to change the EC. This is untrue.
There's simply no way that any of the states with few EC votes (say, 10 or less) would vote to have even LESS say!In the EC? The only thing the EC does is determine President and Vice President. If there are enough people in the individual states in favor of a democratic election (and this is not impossible), I doubt the state governments would resist.

Also, why 10 or less? Seems like a damn arbitrary number to pick.

No shit.
Irrelevant. What you said came across as saying that Congress would have to be changed before it was even theoretically possible to change the EC. This is untrue.
In the EC? The only thing the EC does is determine President and Vice President.

If there are enough people in the individual states in favor of a democratic election (and this is not impossible), I doubt the state governments would resist.

Also, why 10 or less? Seems like a damn arbitrary number to pick.

Congress WOULD have to be changed -- there is simply no way that a measure to change the EC would get 38 states without a major reshuffling -- say making CT/MA/RI into a "superstate". But who'd go along with that? :) (Certainly not the people living there!)

That would be as unconstitutional as taking away the right of assembly. Rights NOT reserved for the Fed or the states are reserved for the people. This is a right of the states. You're proposing taking a zippo to the Constitution simply because you don't like part of it.

10 or less: It is arbitrary, but the odds a small state making much of a difference are low. I chose 10 so it would include small states like Connecticut and South Carolina whom have *way* more in common with Kentucky and Arkansas than they do with Florida and California and Texas. (I'm not talking regional ties, I'm talking small-state issues.)

The ratification by 75% of the states is indeed the stumbling block.
You get an A for Constitutional Law Makreich.
While many will see this as unfair - as candidates with a majority of popular votes will still fall short on electoral college votes, this will be seen as necessary to preserve states' rights. It is the United STATES after all.

Yep. And that's on purpose. :)
Thank you.
It's a rarity, but yes it has happened 3 times in 220 odd years.
Exactly!!

"as candidates with a majority of popular votes will still fall short on electoral college votes"
It's a rarity, but yes it has happened 3 times in 220 odd years.
Exactly!!
To be picayune: a candidate with the *majority* has never lost in the electoral college. Several elections have only had plurality winners (due to significant 3rd and sometimes 4th parties), in which case usually the plurality winner gets a majority in the electoral college. In two elections (1876 and 2000) the electoral vote results were *disputed* and the election was decided by extra-constitutional means, but that is not the fault of the electoral college system itself (in two other elections, 1800 and 1824, the electoral college results were *inconclusive*, but that was before most of the states even had popular voting). There is only one case where the electoral college itself decided the race in favor of the second-place popular-vote finisher, 1888 (Grover Cleveland won New England by wide margins, lost New York narrowly, thus beat Benjamin Harrison in the popular vote but not the electoral; not by coincidence, this is the only time an ex-President ran again the next time and got his job back).