Nonviolent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points
George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes
Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea
A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict
Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential
A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush
The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
If Election Ties and Democratic House Decides: It's McCain's. This Congress Loves Losing.
McCain-Obama tie possible in presidential race
By Andy Sullivan,
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - What if it's a tie?
A handful of battleground states are likely to determine the November 4 U.S. presidential election and it's possible that Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama could split them in a manner that leaves each just short of victory.
If that happens, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives would pick the president but it's unclear whether Democrats would have enough votes to send Obama to the White House.
The House last decided an election in 1824. But the legal skirmishing and partisan rancor would probably resemble a more recent election -- the 2000 vote in which Republican George W. Bush narrowly defeated Democrat Al Gore after a disputed Florida vote count and legal battle.
"This would be the seamy side of democracy, the lobbying and the money would be so intense," said American University history professor Allan Lichtman.
In the United States, presidential elections are determined on a state-by-state basis rather than a nationwide popular vote. Each state, along with the District of Columbia, is allotted a number of votes in the Electoral College that correspond to the number of representatives it has in Congress. To become president, a candidate must win at least 270 electoral votes.
If McCain wins Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio but loses Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa to Obama, both candidates could end up with 269 electoral votes.
Other, less likely scenarios -- McCain losing Virginia and New Hampshire but winning Michigan, for example -- also could result in a tie.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the House would then decide the election when it meets in January, with each state getting one vote -- regardless of its size -- if the chamber has to break a tie.
Democrats, who control the 435-seat House, outnumber Republicans in 27 state congressional delegations and could see that number rise in the November elections.
Republicans have a majority in 21 state delegations. Two states have an equal number of Republican and Democratic representatives.
Some members could feel pressure to vote for the other party's candidate if he carried their state or district or if he won a clear margin of the national popular vote, said Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett.
They would also be under extraordinary pressure from party leaders to stick together.
"There would be bargaining in that context and lots of room for rancor and bitterness. It would be a mess," Bennett said.
The dispute probably would not be confined to Congress.
"Do you believe for one moment that this won't end up in the courts?" Lichtman said.
Other possible scenarios, according to Bennett:
* Before the House meets, the Obama and McCain campaigns could try to convince the Electoral College voters who actually cast each state's electoral votes to switch their support. This has happened occasionally in past elections but has never affected the outcome of an election. Electors in roughly half of the states are bound by law to honor the popular vote.
* While the House picks a president, the Senate picks the vice president in the event of a tie. The Democratic-controlled chamber could pick Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden even if McCain wins the House vote.
* The newly minted vice president could become acting president if the House doesn't reach a resolution by the time President George W. Bush leaves the White House on January 20.
* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become acting president if neither chamber could settle on a president or vice president but she would have to resign her post.
(Editing by David Alexander)
www.VelvetRevolution.us
Electoral college - FOIE!
Do you think maybe it's time to get rid of the antiquated electoral college system we are stuck with? I do and so does Ralph Nader. The constitution can be amended, it's just not easy to do!
Al K.
www.votenader.org
Undemocratic USA
The outmoded Electoral College gives cover to our undemocratic system which in turn gives us the so called two-party system. This two-party system is a direct result of not requiring a winning candidate to get a majority of the votes (more than 50%). He only has to get a majority of the electoral votes.
In any other practicing democracy, there is a run-off election between the top two vote getters when nobody gets more than 50%. Not in the good old USA. Recent examples, both Clinton and Bush Jr were elected with less than 50% of the vote.
How does this perpetuate the two-party system? You and I could vote for whoever we wanted to, if a majority was required to win, and be assured that we were not costing anyone the election. Let's assume it's 2008 and we are faced with our present list of candidates. Many like Nader and McKinney's position on the issues, yet are under constant pressure to not 'waste' their vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning and thus let the bad guy from the other side (McCain) sneak in and win. If McCain gets more than 50% he wins, no matte who we vote for. But if he and Obama are both less than 50%, there is a run-off election between the top two candidates. We could vote for Nader and then vote for Obama in a run off.
How does that change anything? Even with the present campaign financing, freezing them out of debates, media blackout and cheating going on, my guess would be that the aggregate for Nader and McKinney would be easily 20-25%. Personally I know hundreds of people who would prefer either of our third party candidates and are not only voting for Obama, but actively campaigning and fund-raising for him. With a majority necessary for electoral victory, they would probably all vote for either Nader or McKinney and then support Obama in the run-off.
Instant Run-off Voting makes this easy. You simply vote for candidates in order of preference. If no one gets more than 50%, the votes go up the line to your second and third picks until there is a winner. There does not have to be a separate election.
Our democracy, or I should say our former democracy, would be invigorated. The two major parties would lose their strangle-hold on power and it would be good for all concerned, including good men and women of both major political parties who do start out with the best of intentions, but end up being corrupted by a system in which the parties hold all the power.
Nick Egnatz
NW Indiana Veterans For Peace
Haunting Words May Ring True
McSame has ditched accountability for Bushco, Pelosi went further and even took the nations's Constitution "off the table" for Bushco's imperial rule, not subject to our quaint laws, and now Obama, who believes impeachment would be "dysfunctional, a "tit-for-tat, back and forth, non-stop circus", as he recently explained in a reply to a request for impeachment proceedings.
As voters cast their votes, they may skip McSame, and bypass Obama, and the haunting words of an irrate Flordia primary delegate would ring true, this Democratic Congress loves losing, and they "threw the election away on an inadequate black man" after all.
One things should be clear
George W. Bush has never won a presidential election -- not in 2000 and not in 2004. Other than that it all makes perfect sense. With the Pelosi-Bush syndicate at the helm we can expect Republican victories.
4Peace