Help out with the petition to the FCC

[Bubba136]

Only a person that wasn't familiar with our Constitution or the process of electing our President would make an statement like that.

[Rockpup]

Bubba: Very well thought out and compelling arguments.. hehe Plese elaborate on why you think shyguy's wrong. Firefox: Well, GWB is not the first elected official to win with a possible minority vote. you can have a marginal win in most states and lose badly in others and win with much less then 50% of the vote. Our voting system is definatly a holdover from times before the communication revolution. Is there a better way? Probably. Would I be able to figure it out? Doubt it Seeya Jim

[PJ]

... We are a country where the MAJORITY rules.

Ciao!

Anita C.

How I wish this was true regarding American elections. The major fault of our voting system makes it possible that a candidate can win an election while receiving less than the majority of votes cast. This is true for all of our elections, not just the Presidential election involving the Electoral College. It all depends upon the number of candidates and the spread of votes between the candidates.

For a simple explanation with examples, check out the following web site http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/election/math.htm.

[azraelle]

Interesting the direction that this thread has gone. The last few posts cover the how, but not the why, of the electoral college, which was originally set up for the election of senators as well.

Much has been made of the myth that the US is, or was, a "classless" society. Notheing could be further from the truth, either now, or in 1787. Thomas Jefferson was an elitist, who believed that the "common man" as he then existed in America, could not be trusted to govern himself wisely, much less wisely vote for presidential and/or senatorial candidates. I frankly doubt that he felt that they could do it for state representatives either, but that was a compromise he was willing to accede to to get the constitution ratified.

Accordingly, the elitists (or federalists) insured that the elite (or at least the well-educated) would still be in charge, both for electing candidates for the offices that really mattered, and, theoretically at least, after they took office, in perpetuity. That was, and still is, the real reason for the electoral college. Nothing in the constitution, or in laws enacted since, specifies that a duly appointed electoral college representative HAS to vote for the popularly elected candidate--he can cast his vote for whomever he wishes--whether on the ballot or not--letting his "conscience" be his guide. Tradition has generally dictated that they vote for the popular candidate, and they collectively have, for the most part. But the point was, and still is, that if the elite ever failed to somehow swing the popular election to what they felt was a suitable candidate (instead of some illiterate crack-smoking nerfball), the electoral college was/is available as a last-resort means of control.

So, essentially in America, the "Lords" still rule.

[WarrenB]

Only a person that wasn't familiar with our Constitution or the process of electing our President would make an statement like that.

Bubba, even Firefox doesn't vote directly for the Prime Minister. The MP's vote after he votes for his MP. (Member of Parliament)

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdoxmainpg.html

Regards all.

BTW, good topic.

[Anita C.]

Yes, those who contribute to candidates election funds (and other funds) are privy to more attention from that candidate should they get elected D U H ! NEWSFLASH! It's the same everywhere. The Electoral College has always been a puzzlement to me BECAUSE it has the power to make a loser a winner through a confusing and contrived process. This is why we need to do away with the College of Electorates and get back to "For the People and by the People". . . People being the active word here. Is our Government perfect? No. Whose government is? Ciao, Anita C.

[Rockpup]

The real fun fact is that the deligates elected in each state do not have to vote for the candidate that won the state. So, someone could lose a state and still get electoral votes. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Jim

[azraelle]

As I pointed out previously, the electoral college representatives DON'T EVEN HAVE TO VOTE FOR ANYONE ON THE BALLOT!!--They could conceivably vote for their spouse, as long as he or she was a natural born non-felon American citizen of the proper age and mentally competant.

[WarrenB]

Yes, those who contribute to candidates election funds (and other funds) are privy to more attention from that candidate should they get elected

D U H ! NEWSFLASH! It's the same everywhere.

The Electoral College has always been a puzzlement to me BECAUSE it has the power to make a loser a winner through a confusing and contrived process.

This is why we need to do away with the College of Electorates and get back to "For the People and by the People". . . People being the active word here.

Is our Government perfect? No.

Whose government is?

Ciao,

Anita C.

Dear Anita C.

I have to point out the, being a lawyer and all, you bought into the system.

If we do away with the E.C., then we would have many more political parties, like the UK and Canada. I don't know if that would be good or bad.

[Anita C.]

Just because I believe in the system doesn't mean I have bought into it. I support my candidates of choice through volunteer work and contributions. My candidates don't always win. My being a Lawyer has nothing to do with it. Ciao! Anita C.

[Bubba136]

Amen! Anita C. Good government begins at home. You can't have good government at the Federal or state level unless you have it at the local level first. And, the way to have that good government is to get involved, support candidates of your choice by contributing your time, money and effort. Governments everywhere can't succeed without your participation and support.

[Kathi Kleevage]

It seems like a big circle to me. FCC FINALLY nails Stern after years of violations. Clear Channel, being a huge contributer to the Bush campaign, pulls the plug on their Howard shows.They sure didn't mind raking in all the money they could from Stern while the gettin' was good. The FCC backdates his fines beginning to when GW took over the White House after losing to Gore.Dave Barry couldn't write this stuff it is so good. Personally, I find the most obscene thing on the radio to be Rush Limbaugh. The daily hypocritical ravings of a hill-billy heroin junkie who is probably not even going to get his hand slapped for his drug violations is OBSCENE in the worst way.Let's see , he broke the law in Florida and who is the governor of Florida? Go figure....

[Bubba136]

Wow! Conspiracy theories abound!

[JeffM]

Boy life must be so exciting living in the USA compared to dull old Oz Jeff

[Anita C.]

A close friend works for Clear Channel selling airtime. SHE sez Howie has become a very hard sell with even his old sponsors saying no. Howie Stern was once a "Premium" sell . . . now she's only asking 1/2 of what once was & is having a hard time getting that! DITTO Limbaugh! She said in a profound moment "Seems that recently the crap Howard was getting away with is now passe' & lame. As for Rush L., folks want to wait & see what happens when he goes to court". As I have said before, two things motivate media: Ratings & Revenue . . . PERIOD! S'long Howie! S'long Rush! Ciao, Anita C.

[Bubba136]

Good for Howie! Can't say I ever liked him. However, although I don't really follow Rush that closely, from what I've read he doesn't seem to be very close to being indited. Perhaps, with your obvious loathing for the guy, you might lend your able assistance to the prosecutor in Florida to see that he's given the punishment you believe he deserves because you don't agree with his politics. As for his losing listeners, from what I can see, it appears he's gaining them rather than losing them... But then, what do I know. I'm just a poor redneck from the unsophisticated south...

[Anita C.]

I already have! Ciao, Anita C.

[Bubba136]

Hey Anita, has the prosecutor in Fla taken you up on your offer?

[Anita C.]

Yes, he has. I am doing pro-bono work for them currently. Oh! The stories about Rushie I could tell!!! Namaste', Anita C.

[Bubba136]

Oh! Then you're going to be a witness? (Wow, I can't wait until I see your picture and read your comments in the Miami newspapers) Better things are coming.

[Anita C.]

No, hon, I won't be a witness. I AM doing some preparation and investigation work for the prosecution team. Fascinating! Namaste', Anita C.

[asdf174]

A little rant. Just my opion on the whole topic. Personally I don't think their is anything wrong with Howard Stern on the air. He is way offesnsive and I can more then understand why people woulnd't listen to his show, but thats the thing. They don't have to. I think the ones who listen to his show are the ones who want to and know what they are getting into when they listening to it or watch it on tv. As with any type of offensive programing. Point is adults can make thier own choice. Either watch it, listen to it or don't. But don't make the others who do like to listen to it suffer because you or someone else may have a moarl conflict with it. And I think thats what this is about, weather or not the FCC has the right to determine what Everyone should watch. They don't. I think the whole JJ thing was unfortunte and shouldn't have happened on reg. TV if it were on a cable network like HBO it might be a slightly different story she was trying to push the envelope and went to far. And I think the FCC was right to fine her, but now I think there just trying to make examples of everyone and need to just cool their jets. No one wants to see JJ's breast on regulaer prime time tv. Point understood. Now I do realize that their are kids out thier and its important to send a good message to them and stuff, but in all honesty thats for their parents to do. I'm still a virgin so thierfore I'm not a dad. I mean there was lots of stuff my mom didn't let me watch because she was my mom. What happened to that? I mean most television programs and movies and video games even have raiting systems for parents to look at to determine rather or not their right for their kids. Don't let them. And people who sale stuff indecent material to kids show be fined like the law says. I think current censorship standards and regulations that are in place right now are fine when you think about it. Or maybe I'm just full of crap I don't know.

[asdf174]

Whoa I jumped in late. LOL. Like I said jsut my opion on the whole topic though.

[Bubba136]

I must agree in part. Howard Stern has been on the radio for about 20 years, I guess. And, all these years he hasn't changed his program. It is as repulsive today as I remember it was years ago. So, my question is "why now?"

[Anita C.]

It would be nice world if we all felt, thought and processed the same . . . We don't. Public sentiment is like a pendulem. It swings from far right to far left and back again. :argue: I have no sympathy for people who think freedom of speech should include the right for these peabrains to say co********, mother******, s***, c***, a****** and the like wherever and whenever the feel the urge. Yes. I support censoreship. Yes, I know full well that we can change channels/turn off if something offends us. Call me crazy, but I believe that real entertainment is not comprised of profanity, nudity, pornography, degradation, smut or beastiality. Sorry, Howard. . . (not really!) Obviously the MAJORITY people of the country have had it with this kind of drivel. Howard has NO TALENT, PERIOD! He is someone who has made a damn good living shocking people. And now the party's over. Namaste', Anita C.

[genebujold]

Anita, I actually agree with you on this one!!! There are a few forums on which I may cuss - but only where the vast majority of the individuals do likewise. On the other forums, I'd hate to see them polluted by people who can't pull their heads out far enough to figure out how to communicate effectively without reverting to language that insults the sensibilities of others. Good on 'ya, keep at it, and please let me know how I might help!

[genebujold]

placeholder

[Bubba136]

Oh I agree with Anita on the Howard Stern part. I always thought he should have been gaged years ago. However, I still don't understand why a some one in the lawyer community in Denver is investigating a person that lives in Miami and trying to unearth "dirt" on them for a prosecutor that has no jurisdiction in Colorado? Now, I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but even I know that a crime committed in one state, that isn't a federal crime, isn't prosecutable in any other jurisdiction except the one where the inditement is rendered. And, I would even go as far to say that any "dirt" unearthed during this investigation wouldn't be admissable as evidence in any prosecution by a state attorny general in any other jurisdiction except the one where the "dirt" is unearthed -- unless this lawyer's effort is a labor of pure hatred for the individual and they are trying their utmost to discredit the person and trash their reputation.

[Anita C.]

A longtime business associate lives & works in Miami. Monthly I fly down and assist in the investigation. Without getting too specific, the data gathered would fill 2-4" filecabinets . . . so far!! Namaste'. Anita C.

[Bubba136]

That's a huge amout of documentation to get a guy for something a lot of others get away with with just a slap on the hands. Someone down there must have a really big case of the bends for him. Janet Reno, perhaps?