RSSDaily Commentary – Wednesday, April 20, 2016 – Even Though This Was Taped Last Night, I’m sure Donald Trump Was Victorious in the NY Primary
- Looks like Trump and Clinton were likely victorious. One thing for sure, the US political system seems like a joke
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Download
Posted April 20, 2016 by Klaasend 2016 Elections, Dana Pretzer, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Main, Presidential Contenders, Presidential Election, Scared Monkeys Radio | 3 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
3 Responses to “Daily Commentary – Wednesday, April 20, 2016 – Even Though This Was Taped Last Night, I’m sure Donald Trump Was Victorious in the NY Primary”
Leave a Reply
A note to Donald Trump and all those who think there have never been contested conventions.
Sorry, if it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, Trump can suck it up and follow the rules.
S good read …
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/early-republic/essays/presidential-election-1800-story-crisis-controversy-and-change
So the dire predictions and overwrought rhetoric that characterized the election were not mere campaign excess; people really feared disunion. They were also nervous about party loyalties. Rather than intense party unity, there was a jumble of suspicions and conflicting loyalties—personal, ideological, and regional, as well as partisan—at the heart of the election. For example, Northerners and Southerners deeply distrusted each other—Federalists and Republicans alike. Aware of this potential problem, both alliances held a congressional caucus before the election, during which Northerners and Southerners personally vowed to support the candidate from the other region. These vows ultimately proved necessary, for regional loyalties came to the fore throughout the election, prompting a string of nervous demands for reassurance. After hearing a rumor that Virginia Republicans were going to drop votes for Burr to ensure Jefferson’s victory, Burr’s friend David Gelston sent two anxious letters to Madison, reminding him that personal honor was at stake. “I am not willing to believe it possible that such measures [as dropping votes for Burr] can be contemplated,” he wrote, suggesting just the opposite. “We know that the honour of the Gentlemen of Virgina, and N.Y. was pledged at the adjournment of Congress,” and to violate such an agreement would be “a sacrilege.”[6] A letter from Madison to Jefferson reveals that Gelston’s fears were well founded. Gelston “expresses much anxiety & betrays some jealousy with respect to the integrity of the Southern States,” Madison wrote. “I hope the event will skreen all the parties, particularly Virginia[,] from any imputation on this subject; tho’ I am not without fears, that the requisite concert may not sufficiently pervade the several States.” Such fears eventually compelled Jefferson himself, as he later explained, to take “some measures” to ensure Burr Virginia’s unanimous vote.[7]
Clearly, this was no election of simple party politics. Nor did it represent a sudden acceptance of a “modern” politics. The Federalist and Republican congressional caucuses of May 1800 suggest as much. Led astray by the word “caucus,” many scholars pinpoint these meetings as a modern innovation. But in truth, they were something quite different. Participants sometimes referred to them as “caucuses,” but they also called them “the agreement,” “the promise,” “the compromise,” and “the pledge,” to which they would be “faithful” and “true.”[8] Clearly, these caucuses involved negotiation and compromise between men of different views, rather than the simple confirmation of a presidential ticket. Nor was the result of these compromises—electoral tickets featuring a northerner and a southerner—a foregone conclusion, regardless of how obvious such a strategy seems to us. For national politicians, a cross-regional ticket was risky, for it required a high degree of national partisan loyalty and mutual trust between North and South. The national caucuses were attempts to create national party unity, not expressions of it. Indeed, as suggested by words such as “pledge” and “promise,” national party loyalty was so weak that it had to be supplemented by personal vows. To compel politicians to stay the course, they had to commit themselves by pledging their word of honor and their reputations; the only way to unite Northerners and Southerners was to appeal to them as gentlemen who would be dishonored if they abandoned their allies. These honor-pledging ceremonies were not party caucuses as we understand them today.
The election was ultimately decided by a Federalist who abandoned his political loyalties, putting his loyalty to his home state above all else; James Bayard, the lone representative from Delaware, had an entire state’s vote in his power during the deadlock in the House. A letter to Hamilton written shortly after the tie was announced reveals Bayard’s dilemma. First and foremost, he considered himself a Federalist who would require “the most undoubting conviction” before he separated himself from his Federalist friends. He also thought of himself as a Northerner whose intense dislike of Virginia seemed to make Burr the preferable choice for president. Under normal circumstances, these two perspectives would have been in accord, for the Federalists were largely a Northern party with a particular hatred of Virginia, the heart of their Republican opposition. Bayard’s problems arose when he perceived a conflict between Federalist concerns and the welfare of his home state. New England Federalists seemed willing to sacrifice the Union rather than install Jefferson as president. And if the Union collapsed, the tiny state of Delaware would probably be swallowed by another state or a foreign power. As Bayard explained after the election, “Representing the smallest State in the Union, without resources which could furnish the means of self protection, I was compelled by the obligation of a sacred duty so to act as not to hazard the constitution upon which the political existence of the State depends.”[9] Compelled to decide between loyalty to Federalism and to his home state, Bayard abandoned Federalism.
In all of these ways, the election of 1800 cannot be summed up as a stepping-stone to modern party politics. Of course, there are exceptions to all rules, and not surprisingly, Aaron Burr offers one exception. Inspired by the prevailing sense of crisis (as well as by his sheer enjoyment of the political game), Burr pushed political innovation to an extreme. Anxieties were certainly at an extreme in the spring of 1800, for New York City was the most crucial contest of the campaign, capable of deciding the election. The challenge of the moment spurred Burr to new heights of political creativity. For example, he personalized his campaign to an extraordinary degree, purportedly compiling a roster with the name of every New York City voter, accompanied by a detailed description of his political leanings, temperament, and financial standing. His plan was to portion the list out to his cadre of young supporters, who would literally electioneer door-to-door; in the process, he was politically organizing the citizenry—not his goal, but the logical outcome. Similarly, rather than selecting potential electors based on their rank and reputation, he selected the men “most likely to run well,” canvassing voters to test the waters. Perhaps his most striking innovations concerned his advance preparations for the city’s three polling days. As one contemporary described it, Burr “kept open house for nearly two months, and Committees were in session day and night during that whole time at his house. Refreshments were always on the table and mattresses for temporary repose in the rooms. Reporters were hourly received from sub-committees, and in short, no means left unemployed.”[10] In essence, Burr created an early version of a campaign headquarters.
Indeed, as a whole, the election featured a number of electoral innovations. Newspapers were used with particular effectiveness, partly the result of creative politicking, and partly the result of the ever-spreading power of the press—a growing technology. Also, some elite politicians spent more time electioneering among voters than they had before; for example, both Burr and Hamilton pledged “to come forward, and address the people” during the course of the election. During New York City’s three days of voting, both men scurried from polling place to polling place, addressing the crowds. As Burr supporter Matthew Davis noted, this Burr had “never done at any former election.”[11] The partisan presses recognized the novelty of such a gesture. How could a “would be Vice President . . . stoop so low as to visit every corner in search of voters?” asked the Federalist Daily Advertiser. The Commercial Advertiser likewise commented on the “astonished” electorate that greeted Hamilton’s efforts.[12]
More procedures and rules in 1800 and Jefferson wins Presidency.
Sorry, Trump is only special in his own mind.
R
Deadlock over presidential election ends
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/deadlock-over-presidential-election-ends
After one tie vote in the Electoral College and 35 indecisive ballot votes in the House of Representatives, Vice President Thomas Jefferson is elected the third president of the United States over his running mate, Aaron Burr. The confusing election, which ended just 15 days before a new president was to be inaugurated, exposed major problems in the presidential electoral process set forth by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
As dictated by Article Two of the Constitution, presidents and vice presidents are elected by “electors,” a group of voters chosen by each state in a manner specified by that state’s legislature. The total number of electors from each state is equal to the number of senators and representatives that state is entitled to in Congress. In the first few presidential elections, these electors were chosen by popular vote, legislative appointment, or a combination of both (by the 1820s, almost all states adopted the practice of choosing electors by popular vote). Each elector voted for two people; at least one of who did not live in their state. The individual receiving the greatest number of votes would be elected president, and the next in line, vice president.
A majority of electors was needed to win election, thus ensuring consensus across states. Because each elector voted twice, it was possible for as many as three candidates to tie with a majority–in which case the House of Representatives was to vote a winner from among the tied candidates. If no majority was achieved in the initial electoral vote, the House was to decide the winner from the top five candidates. In both cases, representatives would not vote individually but by state groups. Each state, no matter what its number of representatives, would be entitled to just one vote, and a majority of these votes was needed to elect a candidate president.
This response to the 1800 election and what really happened is exactly what people of today need to learn about. Politics even with the standards of the founders was not clean or pretty.
Trump may have known some of this,but it is very doubtful. He is really a beginner politician who thinks the singular vote of a citizen is all that is required. Our country is a Constitutional Republic. That form of government is designed to have elected representatives that do the actual work of the final selection.
Our socialist/democrats have used the news media to promote the word “Democracy” as the descriptive word of what our country represents. A true democracy requires a majority of votes from all the citizens on any and every issue. The result is what occurred with the Articles of Confederation where little was accomplished. The only major accomplishments was the prosecution of the war of independence, which barely succeeded, and the Northwest Ordinance.