Politics Flashcards
Electoral College - Chat GPT
The Electoral College is the system used to formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Here’s a breakdown of how it works, including the role of electors and slates of electors:
- How Electoral Votes Are Allocated• Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress (House + Senate seats). For example, California has a larger population, so it has more electoral votes than smaller states like Vermont.
• There are 538 total electoral votes, and a candidate needs a majority (270) to win.
Each state’s number of electors is equal to its total number of representatives in Congress. This includes two electors for the state’s U.S. Senate seats (since every state has two senators) plus additional electors equal to its number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which is based on the state’s population.
For example:
• California has 2 senators and 52 House members (based on its large population), so it has 54 electoral votes. • Wyoming has 2 senators and just 1 House member (due to its smaller population), giving it 3 electoral votes.
In addition, the District of Columbia, though not a state, has 3 electoral votes due to the 23rd Amendment. This formula is what gives the total of 538 electors (435 House members + 100 senators + 3 for D.C.).
- Selecting Electors• Each state has a group of people called electors who are chosen by political parties within the state. This group is known as a slate of electors.
• Before the general election, each political party in a state submits a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for that party’s candidate if they win the state’s popular vote.
Electors are typically chosen by political parties within each state, and they are not federal officials but rather party loyalists or active supporters of the party’s candidate. Here’s a closer look at the process:
1. Selection by Political Parties: Before the general election, each political party in a state nominates a slate of electors pledged to their candidate. These electors are often chosen by the party’s leadership or are individuals who have shown strong support for the party—such as state and local party leaders, activists, or other notable supporters. 2. Becoming Electors: The process varies by state. Some states let parties directly appoint electors, while in others, electors may be nominated at state party conventions or chosen by the party’s central committee. 3. Role After the Election: When voters cast their ballots in the general election, they are technically voting for the electors pledged to their preferred candidate. In states with a “winner-takes-all” system, the slate of electors for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state is appointed to the Electoral College. 4. Electors as “Faithful” Representatives: Electors are expected to vote according to the results of the state’s popular vote, although they are technically free to cast their vote as they choose in some states. Many states, however, have laws or pledges in place to ensure electors vote in line with the state’s election results, and “faithless electors” (those who vote against the popular vote) are rare.
In summary, electors are typically party loyalists chosen by political parties within each state, and their role is to formally cast the electoral votes for President and Vice President in accordance with the popular vote in their state.
- The General Election (Popular Vote)• On Election Day, U.S. voters cast their ballots for President and Vice President. However, they’re technically voting for a slate of electors pledged to their preferred candidate.
• In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state receives all that state’s electoral votes (winner-takes-all). Maine and Nebraska, however, split their electoral votes based on congressional district outcomes and a statewide vote. - Electors Voting (Electoral Vote)• Once the popular vote is decided, the winning slate of electors for each state meets in mid-December in their state capitals to cast their votes for President and Vice President.
• These votes are then sent to Congress to be counted. - Counting Electoral Votes and Finalizing the Outcome• In early January, Congress meets in a joint session to officially count the electoral votes.
• If a candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, they’re declared the President-elect.
• If no candidate reaches 270, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation has one vote to choose the President from among the top three candidates.
Key Points about Electors and the Electoral College System
• Faithless Electors: Electors are expected to vote for their party’s candidate, but occasionally, an elector may cast a vote for someone else. Some states have laws requiring electors to stick to their pledge. • Role of Slates of Electors: The slate system is a way for states to designate electors who are loyal to a candidate. Whichever party’s candidate wins the state, their slate of electors is chosen to cast the formal votes.
The Electoral College was designed as a compromise between a popular vote and a congressional selection of the President, and it’s aimed at balancing the influence of small and large states.
Is Replacing Biden an Attack on Democracy? - LA Times; July 2024
Key Points of the Article:
1. Criticism of Primary Elections: • The Democratic Party’s reliance on primaries to select candidates is questioned, with an argument for considering alternatives. • Historically, brokered conventions, not primaries, were the norm until 1972. 2. Flaws in Common Defenses of Primaries: • Lazy Defense: Claiming primaries are traditional ignores the pre-1972 system of party conventions. • Idealistic Defense: Suggesting primaries are necessary for democracy is misleading, as most democracies don’t use them. • Practical Defense: While primaries originated in the Progressive Era to combat party corruption, they were never meant to be the sole method for candidate selection. 3. Comparison with Other Institutions: • Major institutions (e.g., media, military, and religious organizations) are not internally democratic. This suggests political parties could function similarly by emphasizing leadership over populism. 4. Polarization and Extremism: • Primaries allow extreme and uncompromising voters to dominate, leading to candidates who are less representative and more beholden to fringe views. 5. Kamala Harris and Democratic Leadership Concerns: • Doubts about Harris’s electability stem from her lack of recent competitive election wins and her performance in the 2020 primary. • Despite polling showing Biden and Harris are unpopular, the current system restricts party leaders from choosing alternative candidates. 6. Winning Should Be the Priority: • The Democratic Party’s main responsibility is to nominate a candidate who can win the general election, especially against Donald Trump, rather than adhering strictly to primary results. • Ignoring Biden’s primary victories might better reflect voters’ broader concerns and increase the party’s chances of success. 7. Democracy vs. Pragmatism: • While democracy is valued, prioritizing a general election win — especially when democracy itself is perceived to be at risk — should take precedence.
Democrat Primary 2024 - Chat GPT
There were Democratic primaries in 2024, but they were largely symbolic since President Joe Biden was the incumbent seeking reelection. Incumbent presidents typically face little to no serious opposition within their party during primaries. However, there were a few challengers:
1. Marianne Williamson - An author and activist who ran on a progressive platform. 2. Dean Phillips - A congressman from Minnesota who entered the race late in 2023, framing himself as a moderate alternative to Biden.
Despite these challengers, President Biden remained the overwhelming favorite, with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and most party leaders backing him. Many states made adjustments to their primary schedules, especially since the DNC prioritized South Carolina as the first primary state, a move seen as aligning with Biden’s strong support among Black voters in the South.
Ultimately, Biden’s incumbency and support from the Democratic establishment made his renomination almost certain.
Many states allowed voters to participate in choosing a Democratic candidate. While President Joe Biden was the incumbent and heavily favored, some states still conducted primaries or caucuses where voters could cast ballots for challengers like Marianne Williamson or Dean Phillips.
However, not all states held competitive primaries. Some states may have canceled their Democratic primaries or shifted their formats due to Biden’s strong incumbent advantage and lack of significant opposition. This is a common practice when a sitting president seeks reelection and the party wants to consolidate resources.
If a state held a Democratic primary and Williamson was on the ballot, voters in that state could vote for her if they wished. Whether her name appeared on the ballot depended on state-specific filing requirements and whether her campaign filed to compete in those states.
Where’s the line between good government and too much government? - CNN, 2021
There is something strange and circular in our ongoing fight over what freedoms Americans should enjoy.
We are precisely 20 years out from the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, after which Americans gave up a lot of individual liberties in the name of safety. Air travel, especially, was changed forever and the government began moving toward a much more expansive use of surveillance.
Now we’re in a place where people are completely fine taking off their shoes and belts in public before they can board domestic flights because of a foiled long-ago plot, but have resisted wearing masks – let alone offering up their Covid vaccine status – in-flight amid a deadly global pandemic.
And Republicans are accusing President Joe Biden of authoritarianism, rejecting his effort to compel companies to make employees submit to either vaccinations or regular testing. The effort, which has been announced but not yet detailed, will come through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which means it’s a matter of workplace safety.
Republican governors have promised to sue the Biden administration to stop the effort.
It’s a flip of the script from the Trump years. We’re still reeling from four years in which Americans saw a President consider using the military in his own country and actively and openly tried to stop the democratic process, which would have robbed every American of some kind of freedom.
There is ample evidence then-President Donald Trump was reading from an authoritarian playbook in his effort to upend the election.
The Republican congresswoman, Elise Stefanik of New York, who tried to help Trump object to the election he lost, argued Biden’s public safety efforts were “unconstitutional, unlawful, and an authoritarian power grab that has become a hallmark of his failed Presidency.”
The feds have accusations too. Further complicating questions of freedom is Biden’s accusation that states rejecting local mask and vaccination rules are incorrectly imposing their will and endangering people in the process.
Vigilante abortion lawsuits in Texas are a twist on rights. Separately, his Department of Justice is suing Texas over its restrictive new law that all but outlaws abortions in the state by giving private citizens a sort of vigilante license to sue anyone who facilitates an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
Wartime measures. Biden’s vaccine requirement effort is extraordinary in terms of government intervention, compelling companies to touch many millions of workers. But this is a war against Covid-19, which has killed so many hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Questions of rights. When a government can require people to stay home, when it can require them to wear a mask indoors, have become so political even though they are central to the effort against Covid-19, which has no politics.
The details are still coming, but it will be challenged in court.
A vaccine is different than putting a person in prison. There’s a difference between Biden’s decision to use the government to get people stuck with an FDA-approved vaccine and other extraordinary suspensions of rights.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt rounded up and detained Japanese Americans during World War II.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War.
President Andrew Jackson forced Native Americans from their homes and marched many to their deaths.
All of these were ultimately rejected by courts, but not in time to reinstate rights, restore property or give back lands.
The question now is whether a shot in the arm will be viewed as a national imperative or government overreach.
The Supreme Court has said the public interest in combating disease outweighs an individuals opposition to a vaccine. But it did that more than 100 years ago, in 1905, regarding smallpox, a disease the World Health Organization declared eradicated in 1979.
Here’s a nugget bringing it all together. In 2002, when the country was still extremely concerned about terror attacks, President George W. Bush ordered 500,000 members of the military to get the smallpox vaccine in the off chance of a biological warfare terrorist attack.
Today, American schoolkids get a wide range of vaccines, all approved by the FDA. A number of states – 15 according to the National Conference of State Legislatures – allow opt-outs for nothing more than personal belief and skepticism. Those have led to a resurgence of certain vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles.
A new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released ahead of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 finds Americans still feel the affects of the attacks.
57% say the attacks have impacted the way they live their life today
68% say the attacks had an impact on Americans’ individual rights and freedoms.
Here are some interesting points from CNN’s report on the poll:
Older adults, who were 45 or older in 2001, are least likely to say the attacks had “a great deal” of impact on how they live their lives now (13% say so).
Among those who were children, teenagers or not even born yet at the time of the attacks, 24% say 9/11 had a great deal of impact on their lives.
Republicans (72%) are a bit more likely than Democrats (64%) to say that rights and freedoms were affected by the attacks.
Twenty years from now, when Covid, hopefully, is something we’ve defeated, I wonder if people will be talking about how the pandemic changed their lives and if the idea of Covid-19 vaccines will be at all controversial.
