A Constitutional Solution
A Constitutional Solution
Don’t like Wallbuilder Donny or Lying Hillary? There’s a way out. It’s called the Electoral College.
The Democrat Machine got its way and, Democrats are left standing at the altar, staring at a bride most of them don’t want, in spite of her gender.
The brick (and punch) throwers got their way and, Republicans are left standing at the altar, staring at a groom most of them don’t want, in spite of his vast knowledge and quiet eloquence.
If you’re less than thrilled about the choice you’re facing, there may still be time to avoid your vows. It depends on a seriously flawed third party which has fielded an accomplished and acceptable candidate who, even if he doesn’t receive many votes could, if he plays his cards right, stop both Donny and Hillary from winning.
What? They can both lose?
Yes, they can both lose. Our Constitution requires a Presidential candidate receive a majority of Electoral College votes; not a plurality, a majority. The same straightforward, established Republican Party rule that Trumpites refused to acknowledge or understand in the primary process. To get the Party nomination a candidate had to receive more than half the available votes. To become President, a candidate has to receive more than half the 539 available Electoral College votes.
If neither Donny, nor Hillary receive 270 Electoral College votes, they both lose.
Feeling flushed? Pulse quickening? Wondering if this can really happen?
It’s happened twice, once in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr got exactly the same number of Electoral College votes, allowing the House of Representatives to select Jefferson as the next President.
It happened again in 1824 when, because there were four candidates running for President, none received a majority of the Electoral College votes. The Twelfth Amendment limits the House’s choices to the three candidates who received the most popular votes, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. The Congress picked Adams, even though he’d received far fewer popular and Electoral College votes than had Jackson.
So, you see, it could happen, the House of Representatives, your Congressmen could pick someone besides Donny and Hillary, someone like Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party candidate and former governor of New Mexico...
…as long as neither Donny nor Hillary get 270 Electoral College votes. But, it will only happen if we make it happen. Here’s a possible scenario:
Sanders and Cruz between them took more than 60% of total primary votes cast in the following states: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Main, Utah and Wyoming. That’s a lot of votes for someone besides the two front runners and, if they could be convinced to do it again, vote for someone besides the two front runners, like Gary Johnson, that would be 26 Electoral College votes neither Wallbuilder Donny nor Lying Hillary would get. If they roughly split the remaining Electoral College votes, they both come up short of 270.
The House could then choose “Neither Of The Above”, ending our electoral nightmare and, giving us a caretaker President, Libertarian Gary Johnson who remains popular in his home state, New Mexico, where he’s thought to have done a very good job. Instead of the usual wild-eyed, bomb-throwing Libertarian, Johnson takes a much more practical, evolutionary approach and appears to have none of the character flaws belonging to the front runners.
Just a thought, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Utah and Wyoming, you could save us. Just a thought.
Don’t like Wallbuilder Donny or Lying Hillary? There’s a way out. It’s called the Electoral College.
The Democrat Machine got its way and, Democrats are left standing at the altar, staring at a bride most of them don’t want, in spite of her gender.
The brick (and punch) throwers got their way and, Republicans are left standing at the altar, staring at a groom most of them don’t want, in spite of his vast knowledge and quiet eloquence.
If you’re less than thrilled about the choice you’re facing, there may still be time to avoid your vows. It depends on a seriously flawed third party which has fielded an accomplished and acceptable candidate who, even if he doesn’t receive many votes could, if he plays his cards right, stop both Donny and Hillary from winning.
What? They can both lose?
Yes, they can both lose. Our Constitution requires a Presidential candidate receive a majority of Electoral College votes; not a plurality, a majority. The same straightforward, established Republican Party rule that Trumpites refused to acknowledge or understand in the primary process. To get the Party nomination a candidate had to receive more than half the available votes. To become President, a candidate has to receive more than half the 539 available Electoral College votes.
If neither Donny, nor Hillary receive 270 Electoral College votes, they both lose.
Feeling flushed? Pulse quickening? Wondering if this can really happen?
It’s happened twice, once in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr got exactly the same number of Electoral College votes, allowing the House of Representatives to select Jefferson as the next President.
It happened again in 1824 when, because there were four candidates running for President, none received a majority of the Electoral College votes. The Twelfth Amendment limits the House’s choices to the three candidates who received the most popular votes, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and William Crawford. The Congress picked Adams, even though he’d received far fewer popular and Electoral College votes than had Jackson.
So, you see, it could happen, the House of Representatives, your Congressmen could pick someone besides Donny and Hillary, someone like Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party candidate and former governor of New Mexico...
…as long as neither Donny nor Hillary get 270 Electoral College votes. But, it will only happen if we make it happen. Here’s a possible scenario:
Sanders and Cruz between them took more than 60% of total primary votes cast in the following states: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Main, Utah and Wyoming. That’s a lot of votes for someone besides the two front runners and, if they could be convinced to do it again, vote for someone besides the two front runners, like Gary Johnson, that would be 26 Electoral College votes neither Wallbuilder Donny nor Lying Hillary would get. If they roughly split the remaining Electoral College votes, they both come up short of 270.
The House could then choose “Neither Of The Above”, ending our electoral nightmare and, giving us a caretaker President, Libertarian Gary Johnson who remains popular in his home state, New Mexico, where he’s thought to have done a very good job. Instead of the usual wild-eyed, bomb-throwing Libertarian, Johnson takes a much more practical, evolutionary approach and appears to have none of the character flaws belonging to the front runners.
Just a thought, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Utah and Wyoming, you could save us. Just a thought.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Machts nichts, as my German teacher used to say when I gave her an excuse. Cruz had a reasonably good website and, at the end of almost every debate answer he'd tell voters to go to it for a more in depth answer.
Almost none of them did. Most voters are lazy. They won't work to educate themselves. They want to be spoon fed. In Cruz's case, even though I didn't care for his website, it didn't and wouldn't have mattered if it had been brilliant, he was judged on what he said on television that was Youtubed and tweeted millions of times immediately after he said it.
So will it be with Johnson. His website won't matter. It's what he says in public, in front of the voters that will matter. So far, his public performance has been alarmingly directionless and apparently indecisive.
To your point about voters not caring about policy; if it's true, as it appears to be, that many voters care only about who gets in the best verbal jabs then, Johnson stands no chance. Not only can he not take Hillary, Donny would and will pummel him with pithy jabs and nonsensical but catchy aphorisms from out of nowhere.
I think (hope) Johnson can succeed on a small stage because I think (fear) he will fail grandly on the large stage.
Ohio, Michigan, and Washiington? Unless there are a multitude of young people who will vote the first time, I don't see those as realistic for Johnson.
On the national stage, this election will not depend on which candidate is the best policy wonk. If concrete policy positions were the criteria for electability, Trump would have been eliminated early in the primaries. This election is very much about cultural identity, and is occurring against a backdrop of huge voter dissatisfaction with the direction the country is taking, and strong voter aversion to both presumptive nominees. On the debate stage, Gary Johnson does not have to be perfect to win. He can make a huge positive impression merely by being seen as reasonable and trustworthy in his manner and general approach to the issues, in contrast to Trump and Clinton who will likely be attacking each other tooth and claw.
I've just finished working on Jim Bridenstine's primary campaign against a small town Trump, named Atkinson, who was supported to the tune of $1 million by a John Boehner group.
That's what you get for voting against the Speaker, retribution.
However, we beat Atkinson 82% to 15%.
Jim Bridenstine is much that Gary Johnson is not: Bridenstine is short of stature, has a nasal, high pitched voice and is ill at ease in front of a crowd. However, he's concrete on policy, knows exactly, down to the smallest detail what he wants to do and says so, up front.
Gary Johnson is tall, has a good voice and relaxed manner before a crowd and - HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE WOULD DO IF ELECTED or, at least he can't seem to tell anyone what he'd do. He's been unemployed for almost a decade. With all that time on his hands, one might have thought he'd have sat down and worked out some concrete policy positions.
I'd volunteer to work for him if he'd adopt my plan and forget whatever plan he has now. I'm from Wyoming and have spent time in Utah and Kansas and Alaska and Iowa. I know the people. they'd go Libertarian if anyone made my case to them.
Sorry. I'll try again.
These states have small populations of very independent people, many of whom feel oppressed by their Federal Government and the liberal states around them. The idea is not to struggle once more to gain traction on the national stage. The idea is to address the voters of those states directly and tell them they hold the country's future in their hands, they, if they so choose, can, by voting for a caretaker Libertarian president, override the foolishness of the liberal states around them and the rigged two party system. They, if they so choose, can prevent us all from having to step on one of the two landmines the rest of the country has set for us.
You win these people over not by appealing to the country at large but, by appealing to them, by telling them it's in their hands, that they can save the country if they're brave enough to go another way. You appeal to them by making them special, important, brave and patriotic.
Appealing to the entire nation leaves no one feeling special, leaves everyone wondering which of the two leading candidates is least bad and, guarantees the Libertarians will receive popular votes in the single digits nationally and no Electoral College votes and, one of the two major candidates will win, again, as they have for over a century.
Johnson's deluded if he thinks he'll look good on the debate stage. I've watched the Libertarian Party convention and their town halls. These guys haven't figured out their first concrete policy on anything. They can't answer any specific questions with specific answers. I'm a libertarian by nature and have voted Libertarian my entire life but, these guys are so bad, in the weeks they had between their convention and their first CNN town hall they did nothing about policy. All they have is vague "intentions" and "philosophical leanings". They will be made jokes of on the national stage because, they are jokes. They're not ready to debate on the national stage and won't be ready until they can answer specific questions with specific policies and proposals.
I'm talking a hail Mary effort, followed, if it works, by a caretaker government, one that spends four years holding things together until the next election when, we can hope a majority of the population will have come to a better understanding of the future we face.
https://libertarianvindicator.com/201...
If the election does get thrown into the House of Representatives, I believe enough states are majority Republican that Hillary has no chance. This opens up the possibility that the blue states will vote for Johnson in order to block Trump. The questions then becomes whether enough red states are sufficiently anti-Trump to put Johnson/Weld over the top.
This article says as many as 99 electoral votes could be in play. https://libertarianvindicator.com/201...
I'm the author and I chose those states for specific reasons; they're the ones with the highest degree of demonstrated antipathy for Donny and Hillary. If the two major parties approximately split the herd then, the Libertarians need only come up with 34% of the popular votes in those states to win their electoral college votes.
I've spent lots of time in several of those states and, believe the voters would respond to such a suggestion. I believe the Libertarians should concentrate ALL their efforts on these and a few more states where the population would be receptive to the idea of voting Libertarian once, to avoid ending up with Hillary or Donny.
I know some of those people and, I believe they are approachable as spoilers. However, in all his televised statements, I hear nothing from Gary Johnson except gripes about how unfair the two party system is. Instead of pursuing the spoiler policy, he seems to be pursuing the same fantasy the Libertarian Party has pursued all of my life.
Oh, well. What will it be instead, a personally and politically corrupt woman or an astonishingly ignorant, unprepared psychopath?