Reed: Senate Integrity Demands Burris be Denied

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Our topic this week is, "Should the United States Senate seat Roland Burris?" Based on the flip of the coin, I will argue that Burris should be denied entry into this august law-making body.

It's important to note that, even as we argue the point, the wheels are turning and a decision may be finalized as the debate gets posted. This should not affect our arguments or your comments. In fact, any decision on Burris' fate may indeed make the debate more lively. Remember, too, that the ultimate decision could have affects reaching well outside the borders of Illinois.

It is important to begin by noting that, while some may question Burris' overall ability to be an effective voice for the people of Illinois in the U.S. Senate, no one has thus far questioned his moral character or intimated that he is privy to the scandal in Springfield. Burris, 71, was the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois and served as its comptroller in an admirable fashion. As Illinois' appointed Attorney General, he has avoided the odorous taint that often overwhelms high-ranking politicians in a state where a felony record is not required to hold high office, but often seems inevitable by the time the office holder leaves office and enters into custody.

The fact remains, however, that Burris has tried and failed on numerous occasions to earn the trust of Illinois voters in an attempt to gain higher political office. He was defeated in a run for the U.S. Senate in 1984. He failed in attempts to become Illinois' governor in 1994, 1998, and 2002. He was trounced by Richard Daley when he ran for Mayor of Chicago in 1995.

One must admit that Roland Burris is no quitter. His desire for high office, and some would say his incredible ego, has led him to make comments that have raised questions among Illinois voters as to his desirability. According to an article printed in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1993, Burris claimed that he was "not some fluke or perennial candidate." In 1998, the Tribune quoted Burris referring to his democratic primary opponents as "non-qualified white boys."

The fact that Burris would play "the race card" in a state where many African-Americans had already made great strides toward overcoming racism is telling, and a very good reason for the Senate leadership to deny Burris' entry. Illinois Congressman Danny Davis, Governor Rob Blagojevich's first choice for the seat, is also black. But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Davis refused the offer of the seat from the scandal-tainted Governor, saying, "It would be difficult for me to generate the trust level people would have to have in me" (see: www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1363433.)

Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, apparently views the issue as soley about race. According to the Sun-Times article mentioned above, Rush referred to the United States Senate as "the last bastion of plantation America." He told the Tribune that senate democrats would "have to come and ask for forgiveness" from black voters if they failed to seat Burris.

This style of politics has become, almost exclusively, the mantra of aging civil-rights-era veterans who, in large part, shunned the Obama candidacy in favor of Hillary Clintons's more traditional campaign rhetoric. But the change that President-elect Obama championed is based not on eliminating the pain of an "oppressed minority", but rather unifying Americans to face the challenges of new and uncharted territory, to the benefit of all. In spite of Rush's statement that the United States Senate "needs an African-American", what the people of Illinois, and indeed the entire nation, need is a Senator who can take his or her seat free of scandal and ready to meet the challenges and sieze the opportunities brought about by our recent history-making election.

My learned opponent will no doubt argue that Blagojevich, while under federal indictment for trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder, is still the Governor of Illinois, and as such has the authority to appoint the successor to Barack Obama until such time as the people of Illinois, or the courts, take away that privilege. Such is not likely to occur any time soon. But the Senate also has legal authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris. According to Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution, "Each House Shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." Section V goes on to say that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (see: http://www.usconstituion.net/).

Thus it appears that Burris, should he arrive at the doors of the Capitol with certified election papers bearing the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State and the official seal of the State of Illinois, then he will be the legally-appointed Senator from that state. And should two-thirds of the Senate refuse entry to Burris, for whatever reason, he will have no recourse on the federal level unless the Supreme Court intervenes, which is highly unlikely.

So this is not a legal argument. Rather, it is an argument based on somber judgement, common sense and an eye toward the greater good. As the Sun-Times said in a January 6 editorial, "If Burris is truly taking this job for the benefit of the people of Illinois, as he insists, he'll do the honorable thing - not take it. This is not about race, this is not about Burris. This is about standing up for fair play."

Fair play - not a common term used in political discourse over the last century, especially in Illinois. But in light of an historic election in the midst of uncertain and tenuous times, strong leadership and fair play may well be the only things that save our great nation. Illinois, and the United States Senate and the people it represents, deserve no less.

Dano: If it's Legal, Let Burris Sit in the U.S. Senate

Welcome back, folks. This week, Reed and I are revisiting political matters, mostly because there's a lot to discuss, but also because we sense our readers prefer political topics to non-political ones. Feel free to correct our assumption if it's wrong.

The coin flip has me arguing this week that the United States Senate should not block the seating of former Illinois Attorney General, Roland Burris, as Barack Obama's replacement. My arguing this position requires that indicted Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was within his legal rights to make this appointment (which I believe he was), and, further, that the Illinois Supreme Court will either force the reluctant Illinois Secretary of State to certify the appointment, or will determine that certification is not legally necessary (these issues are yet to be determined). As of Tuesday, January 6th, the U.S. Senate has refused to seat Burris on the sole basis that his paperwork is not certified by the Illinois Secretary of State. I will proceed as if these issues will be taken care of, such that the U.S. Senate will be saddled with this seating decision without regard to technical impediments.

A little housekeeping for anyone who may not know it: the United States Senate does not have to allow anyone to hold a Senate seat, even if they were legally and unquestionably elected by the people of their state. All it takes is a 2/3 majority vote for the Senate to deny someone a Senate seat, so the issue at stake here is more a moral or ethical one than a legal one.

Those who would suggest that the Senate should deny Burris the seat are, most often, relying on the notion that the appointment itself was inappropriate because Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been indicted for corruption -- specifically, for trying to "sell" Obama's vacated Senate seat for his own personal gain. Current Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, asked the Illinois Supreme Court to strip Blagojevich of his Gubernatorial duties (including the Senate appointment) pending the outcome of legal investigations. They denied her request. Every Democrat in the U.S. Senate asked Blagojevich not to make any appointments, as did the Illinois legislature and most other officials in that state. By and large, the Illinois electorate also appears to have been against the Governor's action. But the rub is that he hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing, yet. So, what's the deal?

Two Kinds of Justice

This topic is pretty easy for me, because, as a former paralegal and a current criminologist, I have studied law extensively. For those of you who very well understand U.S. jurisprudence, please forgive the "professorial tone" of the following paragraph; most people have not studied these issues, so a little background to support my point may be necessary.

There are, in the U.S., two distinct kinds of justice -- procedural justice (meaning that outcomes are just, based upon the use of proper legal procedures), and substantive justice (meaning outcomes are just, based upon the facts as determined by the finders of fact). Most of us believe, in our hearts, in the supremacy of substantive justice over procedural justice. Remember the national outcry when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? His acquittal was actually based upon the findings of fact made by the jury (sounds like substantive justice), but the jury's findings were greatly affected by law enforcement's procedural mistakes. In the United States, procedural mistakes, especially deliberate procedural wrongdoing, is thought to be as egregious as Simpson's alleged criminal acts. In fact, all appeals of criminal convictions must be based on procedural mistakes or wrongdoing, not upon the findings of fact. Note to law enforcement: DON'T EVER TRY TO FRAME A GUILTY PERSON. The upshot of this is that, no matter how we may disagree with the outcome, Simpson was appropriately acquitted of those murders from a procedural justice point of view. So, what does this have to do with Blagojevich appointing Roland Burris? Read on.

The Law is the Law

Blagojevich has not been tried on the charges for which he was indicted, no less convicted. "Innocent until proven guilty" remains the standard upon which we base our legal procedures. There has not been even a single formal release of evidence against Blagojevich, because there has been no formal prosecution. Yeah...I believe, as many do, that he probably is guilty as charged -- the man is an unpleasant person who seems inclined to abuse power in the ways he has been accused of abusing it. But, again, this is not sufficient to call him a guilty man.

Blagojevich remains the duly elected Governor of Illinois, and the law says that, as such, he alone has the ability to appoint a replacement for Obama as U.S. Senator from Illinois. The law doesn't require that he do so, but he has the sole ability. Because the Illinois Supreme Court has elected not to act against him, the Illinois Legislature is the only remaining legal body with the ability to modify the Governor's procedural rights (presumably by impeaching and successfully prosecuting him for some crime or crimes). This has not occurred. Therefore, as distasteful as it seems, Governor Blagojevich was within his rights as Governor of Illinois to appoint Roland Burris to replace Obama.

The U.S. Senate "Calculus"

So the question for the U.S. Senate becomes an ethical one: Should we allow the man appointed by the tainted Illinois Governor to hold a Senate seat, or should we deny his entry and wait for the people of Illinois to replace Obama in a new election? It is clear that they are leaning toward denying Burris the seat, but this is a mistake.

The fact is that U.S. Senators are lawmakers. As such, they should be the standard-bearers of impeccable legal procedure. In this case, they should recognize that Burris's appointment was legal and procedurally allowable. More importantly, however, denying him the seat based upon "gut feelings" about Blagojevich's guilt, while within their rights, amounts to convicting Blagojevich in a kangaroo court. I, personally hold U.S. Senators to a higher standard than that. Because Blagojevich was not actually convicted of wrongdoing, there is simply no logical reason to suggest that Burris is not a valid appointee. Remember, Roland Burris has not been accused of wrongdoing, and was, in fact, the Attorney General in Illinois who ran unsuccessfully against Rod Blagojevich for Illinois Governor. While Burris has also previously run for the U.S. Senate and been denied by the voters, this appointment is legal. The Illinois voters will have their chance to correct any "mistake" they feel has been made in the next election cycle. Members of the U.S. Senate, I fear, are playing politics at the expense of procedural justice.

Really?

Should Roland Burris have accepted the nomination? There's another can of worms, but, in my humble opinion, it's irrational political suicide. Maybe being irrational and suicidal are reason enough for the Senate to deny him the seat.

Naw...

Reed: Living a Celebrity Life Means Taking the Bad with the Good

Welcome back, folks. Although our last topic was deemed "boring" by our first poster, it has generated more feedback and more new posters than anything we have debated so far on Butt and ReButt. Thanks to all who have participated, and please spread the word.

This week, we are discussing whether or not media access to celebrities and public figures should be regulated by the government. Based on the flip of the coin, I will argue that those well-entrenched in the public eye do not warrant special protection from intrusion by the media.

On its face, the debate would seem to revolve around the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of the press versus and individual right to privacy. But the argument can be made that, while freedom of the press is specifically guaranteed in Amendment I of the Constitution, the "right to privacy" is a conceptual right granted through interpretation and application, not through specific mention in the Constitution.

Indeed, the privacy rights most Americans assume are "protected" exist only because courts have ruled that such rights fall under the protections assumed in Amendment IX, which reads, in part, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other (rights) retained by the people (see: www.answers.com/topic/amendment-ix-to-the-u-s-constitution).

Both the first and ninth amendments to the Constitution were ratified in December, 1791. But not until after World War II were arguments heard before the U.S. Supreme Court that were based on protections provided through Amendment IX. The most famous of these, and the most controversial, remains Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights case. The finding rests almost entirely on the Court's perception that the privacy of the woman seeking an abortion was protected as one of the "other (rights) retained by the people" mentioned in Amendment IX.

But in 1986, the Court backed away from such a broad-brush approach to privacy rights in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. In this case, a Georgia law outlawing "sodomy" between same-sex couples was ruled constitutional, in spite of the respondent's citing of Ninth Amendment precedents (see: www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/bowers). Then, in 2003, the Court again reversed itself in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning a law similar to the Georgia statute on the basis that government could not establish laws affecting the behavior of consenting adults in private settings (see: www.law.cornell.edu/html/02-102).

So it is clear that, even today, the constitutional waters regarding privacy rights remain murky. So we must often rely on a concept that is in woefully short supply today - common sense.

Common sense would dictate that we should be afforded privacy to do any legal thing we desire, unless of course we have sought out and achieved the attention of the public through our conscious actions. Such is the case with celebrities, politicians and others in the public realm. They have actively sought, and subsequently profited from, fame. So I would submit that, fame inevitably coming as the result of exposure to the public realm through media contact, any desire by a notable figure to protect his or her "privacy" can only be exercised in those cases where laws have been violated.

For instance, I don't think anyone would argue that Britney Spears would be within her rights to file charges against a photographer hiding in her closet. Such an interloper should be arrested and prosecuted under existing statutes pertaining to trespassing, breaking and entering and stalking. But Ms. Spears certainly has no cause to complain about the reporters and photographers gathered at the door of the rehab center, because it was these same journalists, and I use that term loosely, that made her the icon she is today, thus providing the wealth and fame she obviously desired.

The term "paparazzi" was unknown to most of us prior to the tragic death of Princess Diana. The term was coined from a character in a play produced by Federico Fellini, "La Dolce Vita". It is said that Fellini named the character "Paparazzo" based on a term from an Italian dialect that describes the annoying buzz of a mosquito. Quite apt, I would say.

The case of Princess Di and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed raised many questions about the excesses of the media. And while no one was ever prosecuted for her death, courts in Great Britain and France ruled that their was enough culpability to go around, and laws were broken. And this is the important issue - if a reporter or photographer is breaking the law, prosecute them. If they are not, then the protections afforded them by our Constitution must be respected.

It is easy, I suppose, for someone who idolizes a singer or actor to sympathize when their hero is fighting his or her way through jostling crowds with flashbulbs popping and Barbara Walters-wannabes hurling personal questions. But I find it hard to cry crocodile tears for people who hire agents to publicize their every move, who never miss an opportunity to find a photographer when they are at their best, and then complain when they pop up, uncombed and disheveled, on the cover of the tabloids or the lead story on "Entertainment Tonight."

"I have a life, and you should respect my privacy," is the constant refrain. Ah, but time goes by, and as talent wanes and the aura can only be preserved through massive amounts of plastic surgery, that aging star will long for the bygone days and complain about being "forgotten." Alas, such is the price of fame.

And it's not just the Hollywood types. I'm sure Senator Larry Craig figured he was safe from scrutiny, even though his dubious foot-tapping occured in a public restroom. I suggest that, if Craig had opted to avoid the limelight that comes from membership in one of the most august bodies in the world, his arrest would not have even made headlines in his hometown paper.

For those of us who find the attention paid to these celebrities disgusting, we have only ourselves to blame. Our thirst for dirt, our love of gossip and our incredibly short attention spans have created this monster, and some have thrived as a result. There is a cure, of course, but it is not government intervention. Rather, it involves the simple task of turning off the television, not buying the magazine, and seeking a more intelligent outlet in our quest for knowledge.

Alas, I am dubious that such will ever be the case. I told a friend during the recent presidential campaign that, if one of the candidates had been assassinated, the press would have broken away from the story to cover Britney's latest exploits.

So it seems our media is a mirror of our society, and the reflection is certainly not pretty. But our press is at least free, and guaranteed to remain so. That must never change.

Dano: The Media is Regulated Already, and They Should Be

Back again, everyone...and, for a change, we're not doing a political subject this week (okay, maybe that's debatable). We all have strong opinions about paparazzi after being privy to their work with Princess Diana, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and even families of crime victims or accused perpetrators. It's an interesting subject, for sure. The coin toss this week has me arguing in favor of regulating the media's rights when covering celebrities and public figures. Because this subject requires some legal research, most everything I allude to here can be found at http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/state-codes.html, or http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/.

A lot of discussions about this topic center around celebrities and their tendency to seek publicity until they get too much of it. Most of us don't feel too sorry for them, because they sort of "made their own beds and should have to sleep in them." Sometimes, this argument is hard to counter, because so many young Hollywood types, in particular, really do bring it on themselves (Paris Hilton comes to mind, who is famous just for being famous by her own tactics of seeking publicity). But many celebrities don't appreciate paparazzi intrusions, whether in public areas or otherwise. Celebrity status earned because you are a fine actor or popular politician, for instance, does not automatically invite intrusions of privacy by the media. Moreover, paparrazi, in particular, have become more and more bold over the years and have sometimes caused mayhem and physical and mental danger to their subjects. But doesn't the press have a right, under Article 1 of the Constitution, to report on newsworthy people in this way? Not always.

There are competing legal issues at stake: the Constitutional rights of free speech (and freedom of the press) vs. an individual's privacy rights. Rights to privacy are not specifically delineated in the U.S. Constitution, but the courts have repeatedly "found" those rights in various passages, and certain kinds of privacy are now considered defacto rights. But laws and regulations are not guided only by the U.S. Constitution; they are also informed by state Constitutions, state statutes, legal scholarship, and court precedents. Some of these will be discussed shortly.

Let's get a common misunderstanding out of the way. The notion that the freedom of press and freedom of speech rights are inalienable, or not subject to regulation or limitation, is incorrect. We all know, for instance, that courts routinely bar the press from legal proceedings or impose gag orders, because, even though potentially newsworthy, the right of a defendant to a fair trial could be compromised by the exercise of these rights. Constitutional rights are always relative -- they are granted as equitable rights, meaning that you have them if they don't impinge on the rights of others. Similarly, you can't legally holler "fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, and you can't say the word, "bomb" in an airport in the absence of a bomb. Most people would not argue that these limitations are inappropriate. So, then, is it equally appropriate to regulate the media's rights as they relate to covering celebrities and other public figures? Certainly.

The courts have routinely recognized personal privacy rights for all citizens, whether they are public figures or not. However, they have also understood the unique nature of entertainment celebrities, and their tendency to seek publicity. Because of this difference between the famous and the non-famous, remedies at law are much harder to come by for celebrities; the fact that they often seek celebrity status and media coverage makes it harder for them to claim unwarranted intrusion, and the media has a greater case that the coverage is "newsworthy." Those that don't seek the attention in public, or are hounded to such a degree that they feel threatened, however, have some legal protection, thanks in part to Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis.

Without going into a lot of specifics, Onassis and her children were relentlessly followed, photographed and otherwise hounded by a man named Ron Galella, who believed that the minutia in the lifestyle of the Onassis family was newsworthy. In Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2d cir., 1973), the court determined that Onassis and her family had a right to privacy that was being infringed upon by the activities of Mr. Galella. Specifically, he was enjoined from "approaching her within a distance of 25 feet or her children within a distance of 30 feet." In their ruling, the court recognized that the right to privacy includes:

"a general right to be left alone, and to define one's circle of intimacy; to sheild intimate and personal characteristics and activities from public gaze; to have moments of freedom from the unremitted assault of the world and unfettered will of others in order to achieve some measure of tranquility for contemplation or other purposes, without which life loses its sweetness."

Moreover, every state has statutes that govern the right to privacy. In most instances, the privacy rights fall into four categories that were taken from the Second Restatement of Torts, a scholarly legal treatise relied upon by the courts. Invasions of privacy are: 1) intrusion into solitude, 2) public disclosure of private facts, 3) depiction in a false light, and 4) commercial exploitation of a person's name or likeness, also called appropriation.

Upset celebrities rarely litigate based upon either Galella or privacy statutes, most likely because the paparazzi activity generally occurs in public places (where the expectation of privacy is not assumed), or the photos or other coverage of their private property activities is done from a distance (with telephoto lenses or helicopters, for instance). This latter method of gaining access to the private goings-on of famous people has yet to be examined by the courts. Entering the private property of an individual is a clear violation of both privacy statutes and trespass laws, but gaining images from public areas through the use of long lenses does not fall neatly under the statutory prohibitions. More often than not, celebrities who sue over these kinds of intrusion do so under copyright infringement laws (similar to the fourth invasion of privacy tort listed above) -- the unlicensed use of their copyright-protected images for financial gain.

It is also probable that celebrities who don't seek media exposure understand that the paparazzi are supplying the demand of the public for "the skinny" on them. Thus, even if they feel intruded upon, complaining about or litigating these intrusions may cause damage to their reputations of being responsive and appreciative of the public's adoration. Probably a powerful inhibition for most of them.

On a final note with regard to celebs, many have suggested that stalking laws be changed to cover the activities of papparazi -- particularly after both the Princess Diana episode and, more recently, the relentless and damaging hounding of Britney Spears. Stalking laws, however, are criminal statutes (privacy laws are civil) designed to prevent offenders from threatening harm or causing fear of harm in their victims. Paparazzi routinely and successfully deny these intentions. California legislators have recently tried to change the California Code to expand these laws such that the intent of the "stalker" to cause fear is not required to be proven, so long as the "victim" experienced fear. Although public support has been rising, it does not appear that they have passed any such changes to the stalking statutes, yet.

Who among us has not winced at the poor judgment of media who camp out on the lawns of folks who are the survivors of murder victims, or missing children, or other people who had no intention of being public figures, but got thrust into the position? What about regulating the media's access to these poor souls? Well, again, there are existing trespass laws, and I suspect that if they knew about it, many could avail themselves of the protections afforded by Galella, at least when they are in public places. These people are newsworthy, even if they don't want to be, but the media really ought to have more compassion than to rest their laurels on First Amendment rights to hound this brand of public figure. That's just common decency, and viewers and readers ought to complain about these media excesses (market forces can be powerful controls, no?).

So, then, the media are and should be regulated in their coverage of celebrities and public figures, the same as they are and should be in their coverage of ordinary citizens. It's nothing more than a balancing of rights. When they violate privacy rights by trespassing, legal protection is available to the victims. To the extent that the media relentlessly follow celebrities in public places and report on their activities, the Galella precedent is available to those public figures who feel their privacy rights are being violated in the way the Onassis family's were. Otherwise, they should just put up with market forces or stay home.

Dano: Public Campaign Financing? It Doesn't Matter

(Note: Reed's post gives a succinct history of campaign finance in the U.S., so I'll not repeat it. I will also avoid repeating his citations for brevity, though I relied on some of them also.) 

Well, for a change, I got a coin-flip this week that threw me for a loop. I am supposed to argue that we should maintain the public campaign finance system for federal elections (and, perhaps, mandate its use). But, by golly, after my research, I decided that it doesn't make a lick of difference where the candidates get their "individual contributions." I guess that sounds confusing.

The term, "public financing," is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is that money provided by the government comes from individual taxpayers (private citizens) who decided to contribute $3.00 of their personal tax obligation to the campaign finance fund for presidential elections. Yes, this is a small amount from each donor, but it adds up (though, as of 2006, fewer than 10% of taxpayers contributed annually--more on this issue, later). Moreover, there is an element of private donations within the public finance system, because it only provides "matching funds" of up to $250 per private donation. "Private financing" simply means that individuals donate directly to candidates instead of doing so through their tax returns. The difference is that individuals can (and do) contribute considerably more, though also limited by law, through this direct-donation mechanism. Also by law, corporations are prohibited from donating directly to candidates under both systems.

Fundamentally, proponents of public campaign financing say that this system reduces the possibility of corruption (because the source of candidate funding is known in advance, and is above-board), and helps to minimize the relative advantage of having deeper coffers than other candidates, such that "buying an election" becomes less likely. Under this system, candidates are not permitted to use more than $50,000 of their own money for their campaigns (unlike the substantial personal financial input provided by previous candidates, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few). Of concern to candidates of parties other than Democratic or Republican, public financing is not available to them.

Those who support private campaign financing suggest that it, alone, protects the constitutional right of (unlimited) free speech, and that this system is regulated sufficiently to guard against corruption. The system is said to be superior because each donor has the right to direct their support to a specific candidate (where no such ability exists with public finance funds), further protecting the rights of donors to not support a candidate they don't like. Moreover, there are no limits on how much can be amassed in the aggregate, so if a candidate enjoys support from a much larger proportion of the public than his/her opponents, then his advantage in advertising funds is proportionate and fair. Finally, any party's candidates can get this form of funding -- not just Democrats and Republicans.

So, why doesn't it matter which system we use?

Of minor relevance, there are some equalizing factors between the two systems. First, the advantages of private financing are mitigated by available funds through public financing: 1) public financing subsidizes the nomination conventions of those candidates that accept it (not an insubstantial cost), and 2) public financing pays for the costs of attorneys and other administrative costs (also nothing to sneeze at). But that's not the main issue.

A less obvious issue is that, while we all know that public financing, at least in the 2008 campaign, garnered Senator McCain only about half the money that was collected by President-elect Obama, this is a consequence of both systems being utilized. Remember, above I noted that income tax contributions to public financing were made by fewer than 10% of taxpayers in recent years. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-17-preztax_N.htm?csp=34)

 If, however, candidates were required to use public financing (or, more accurately, prohibited from using private financing), the percentage of citizens choosing to donate with their tax returns would likely rise precipitously.  So, while the free choice to accept private financing exists along with the public financing system, a candidate can choose either method and take his chances, but private financing seems to hold the advantage so long as it remains available. This, by itself, is no reason to mandate one or the other.

The overarching reason the system chosen doesn't matter is that they each deal with "hard money" contributions only. Both systems allow expenditures of "soft money" contributions through the activities of political action committees (PACs), and by organizations known as "527s" and "501(c)s." Taken together, these organizations spend unlimited donation monies to support issues (directly), and candidates (indirectly ). The only "free speech" limitation on these groups is that they cannot suggest voting for or against a particular candidate. They can (and do), however, say things like, "candidate A is the only patriotic contender," and "candidate B is clearly unpatriotic." The power of these groups to affect elections was well illustrated by the soft-money-funded "swift boat" campaign against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race -- many believe this advertising strategy cost Kerry the election. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of these groups to advertise in this way, and no legislation short of a Constitutional amendment can change this fact (see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 [1976]). So, essentially, as long as PACs, 527s, and 501(c)s can operate with impunity, their impact on election outcomes is far more relevant than the direct ads by the candidates, regardless of the sources of their funding.

Some might argue that direct candidate ads have a great deal of impact on voters' choices. That may be true, but I submit that the number of ads, and the geographic spread of them, is not as important to campaigns as it once was because of the advent of 24 hour news networks that endlessly replay the campaign ads of the candidates during the entire course of the election cycle. Even though John McCain spent far less than Barack Obama, for instance, I saw every important political ad that McCain produced as many times as I saw Obama's ads (okay...maybe not quite as many times, but effectively so). The news pundits see these ads as free content, and this essentially gives every candidate free air time. Unfortunately, the news outlets also give free replay time to the ads from the PACs, 527s and 501(c)s. So, again, the power of soft money organizations remains superior. Until this changes (through FCC regulations on media or a Constitutional amendment limiting soft money free speech), there is simply no important difference between the public and private campaign finance systems.

Campaign finance is a very complicated issue, to be sure. But concerning ourselves with an either/or argument over public or private donations is, quite simply, a misdirected effort. Both systems are regulated to prevent corruption, with debatable success, perhaps. But campaign finance reform needs to concern itself primarily with soft money controls if we expect to level the playing field for all candidates and prevent corruption and influence peddling in presidential campaigns.

Reed: Presidential Candidates Don't Need Our Tax Money to Run a Campaign

Hello, folks, and welcome back to Butt and Rebutt. As you've noted, we have been somewhat out of the loop, but this week we're back with a vengeance, and our topic is, "Should public financing continue to be available to candidates for president?". Based on our coin toss, I will argue that public financing for national campaigns has outlived its usefulness if, indeed, it ever had any.

Our recent election brought this issue to the forefront in a surprising way. The Republican candidate, Senator McCain, opted to accept public funds, while the historically cash-strapped Democrats prodded Senator Obama to forego public funding. The Democratic strategy, fueled by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, proved to be an overwhelming obstacle to Sen. McCain's ability to compete for expensive media time, and many pundits are convinced that, once again, this election was won and lost on the ledgers, not at the ballot box.

Sen. McCain, however, had little choice but to opt for public money. He was, after all, the co-author of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) McCain-Feingold Act, more properly known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. President Bush signed the act into law on March 27, 2002, making it the first meaningful revision to laws pertaining to public financing of elections since the first such measures began being administered by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in 1976 (see www.fec.gov/pages/bcra).

It is important to note that 1976 was not the year that this issue came to the forefront. In 1966, Congress passed legislation that would have provided public money to Presidential candidates by funneling funds through the political parties. According to the FEC, the law was suspended a year later, for obvious reasons (www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund). In fact, not even in 1966 were Americans first prodded to look at such a system. Fifty-nine years earlier, according to the FEC, Theodore Roosevelt proposed that public financing of national elections was the only means through which a fair result could be obtained.

Roosevelt's argument in 1907 was the same as that which resonates today - money, and I mean big money, perverts the political realm and insures that only the wealthy and well-heeled can attain high office. To the founding fathers, service was expected and personal gain was set aside. But by Roosevelt's time, special interests had already begun to pervert the process and political chicanery had become commonplace. Thus the argument was, and remains today, that public financing is the only way to assist a candidate with modest means to aspire to greatness in the political arena.

I don't buy it, no pun intended. I agree, as I assume the vast majority of our readers and Americans in general do, that money has indeed become a corrupting influence in the political realm. And the fact that Barack Obama raised more than half a billion dollars to compete for a job that pays $400,000.00 a year raises the simple question, "Why?"Our system has been co-opted by special interests, to be sure, and the money is the driving force. But it's relevant to note that, according to the New York Times and Fox News (organizations that don't often find themselves in agreement, editorially speaking), the average donation to the Obama campaign was less than $90.00.

The most money raised in any political campaign in history, and the average donor gave ninety bucks. Do the math. It's clear that, in spite of our cynicism and anger over how lobbyists, corporations, unions and radicals on the right and left have dominated the money grubbing and media hype, the common man and woman still care enough to fork over a few bucks to support a cause.That's democracy in action, the little person stepping up to help the candidate who best represents his or her values, beliefs and interests on the national level. But that citizen, passionate for a candidate or a cause, has no control over how the federal government doles out his or her tax dollars to presidential aspirants. In other words, your taxes may be going into the campaign coffers of a candidate you find totally repugnant.

I know I don't like that. I assume you don't either. But I also don't like the system the way it is, or was, where money drives politicians to say anything it takes to get elected, to crawl in bed with whatever special interest has the most umph, and then to claim high moral standards as a reason to earn my vote. So the idea of using tax-payer dollars to fund campaigns was based on noble ideals. But as so often happens in the political realm, the best intentions often produce the worst results.

This is a complicated issue on several fronts. Dating back to the 1970's, challenges to restrictions on fund raising and expenditures in political campaigns have hinged on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Buckley v. Valeo which upheld the notion of restrictions on certain campaign fund raising as "primary weapons against the reality or appearance stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." However, in the very same ruling, the court recognized the validity of free-speech arguments, stating, "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Restrictions on this form of free speech, the court said, could only be justified in the case of an overriding governmental interest (see http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/court/buckley.html.)

In this seemingly contradictory ruling, the court did not spell out what constitutes "overriding governmental interest," but the concern was balancing a group or individual's right to participate in the electoral process with the need to prevent graft and corruption within that process. I submit that this balance, and indeed all the concerns expressed in Buckley and cases brought subsequent to this ruling, can be addressed by common sense regulation of private sector contributions to candidates and parties.

I would accomplish this by instituting two major reforms to the current system which I believe would render public financing unnecessary. First, Congress should enact legislation that prevents a candidate for federal office from soliciting or accepting contributions for his or her campaign for a period of time equal to half the term of the office sought. In other words, a candidate for the office of president, which carries a four-year term, could not officially form a campaign committee or raise and spend outside contributions until two years prior to the general election. This is important because, while we prepare to inaugurate the man we elected this month to serve for the next four years, National Public Radio has reported that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in Iowa, planning his strategy for a 2012 run for the presidency (All Things Considered, November 22.)

Nothing in the legislation would impede a potential future candidate such as Governor Huckabee from traveling around making speeches. It would, however, prevent political parties, corporations or wealthy individuals from contributing to a campaign fund in the candidate's name.

The second and equally important aspect of this reform would identify, once and for all, who may or may not contribute to national candidates and how much that candidate can lawfully raise. An individual's campaign would be allowed to raise no more than ten times the amount of the salary paid by the office aspired to during the course of one term. In other words, a candidate aspiring to attain the presidency, and its $400,000.00 annual salary, could raise and spend no more than $16 million. That money could be raised through donations from individuals not to exceed $2000.00, or corporations, unions, or parties not to exceed $50,000.00.

While these sums may seem paltry compared to the massive amounts of money currently spent on national campaigns, a shortened political season would mean less money would be necessary. Such a system as proposed would also serve to level the playing field for third-party candidates, or those with less name recognition.

There is one argument that public-finance proponents offer that would not be addressed under a system such as I propose. That is the notion that unheralded candidates with modest financial means and no name recognition could not compete. I would submit this argument is flawed for two reasons. One, it is false on its face. Raise your hand if you had ever heard of Ron Paul before the Republican debates first aired. Very few hands in the air. But the Texas Congressman set a single day financing record, raking in more that a million dollars over the Internet after his first debate performance.

Secondly, a young state senator from Illinois, from a very modest background and without a war chest, went from virtual unknown to President-elect in four years due to nothing more than his eloquence and perseverance. Proof positive that gifts of style and substance can overcome, at least in the short term, a lack of money or power.

In closing, I believe we can all agree that our political system, with its reliance on massive amounts of money and influence, is broken. The answer lies not in turning the system over to the government, or by completely deregulating the system. As is often the case when things are complicated beyond the capability of most citizens to understand, we should strive to simplify this system while relying on citizen participation, not taxpayer funding, to select our leaders.

Reed: Electoral College has Outlived its Usefulness

Hi, folks, and welcome back. Let me begin by asking you to please spread the word that Butt and ReButt is back, and we want to be a strong force for reasonable, intelligent discussion and debate. So if your friends are not reasonable and intelligent, well......

At any rate, our topic this week regards the Electoral College. I won't do a John McCain here and say, "I bet you've never heard of that" because I know you have. And Dano has given us a very good primer on the history of the college, so I will argue, based on our coin toss, why the Electoral College is not only no longer necessary, but actually detrimental to our democratic process, and should be replaced by a national popular vote.

My grandmother, God rest her soul, loved Richard Nixon because she believed he had "an honest face." I'm confident not many who remember that heavy brow and five-o'clock shadow would agree. But beauty, talent and ability are indeed in the eyes of the beholder - in the case of presidential candidates, the voter. But voters in America, since Article II, Section One of the Constitution was adopted, have been casting their ballots not for president, but for electors.

That system was developed based on a variety of problems faced by the Founding Fathers (note: there were no founding mothers.) According to William Kimberling, a Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission Office of Election Administration, the founders were dealing with a nation that:

• was composed of thirteen large and small states jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government,
  


• contained only 4 million people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable),
  


• believed, based on the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
  


• felt that "gentlemen" should not campaign for public office (The saying was, "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.") (Please note the web site of Federal Election Commission).
  

In the late 18th century, these might have been valid arguments for creating such a system as the Electoral College. But those arguments carry no validity today and for that reason, the system as it stands should be abolished.

This is not to say that individual states no longer jealously guard their rights. Citizens of each state own the right to elect their local and state leaders, and choose who they send to represent them on the national level in Congress. But, were it not applicable prior to 1865, certainly the outcome of the Civil War demonstrated that the union of the American states, and the federal government elected to represent that union, was and is the engine that drives our standing in a world that grows smaller every day.

We are now connected, by transportation and communication, not only between village and city, but state to state and nation to nation. Our population is no longer waiting in anticipation for the elite, more educated leaders of the community to report back from the halls of government as to what is best for our nation. Citizens, on an individual basis, are now expected to not only know what is happening within those halls, but to control them through the exercise of selecting our representatives in all branches of government.

Not only that, but federal law now trumps state law in almost every conceivable situation in which the two might clash. Therefore, each American deserves an equal say in who represents him or her on a national level. And the design of the Electoral College prevents this equality.

Consider the following: Activists and campaign volunteers, both Republican and Democrat, have stressed to potential voters that, no matter what your status in life, your vote counts just as much as that of anyone else. Were it only true. But based on the 2000 Census, and the Electoral College's allocation based on population, an individual voter in Wyoming carries approximately four times as much weight as a voter in California. This makes one wonder what is really the value in the concept of "one person, one vote."

The answer is, where presidential elections are concerned, the concept is false. Our current election race offers a prime example. Michigan, considered a "swing state" due to its high population, has been "written off" by the McCain campaign because, based on the opinion of McCain's handlers and the media pundits, Michigan is "unwinnable." So Senator McCain has pulled all of his campaign staff from Michigan to concentrate on other "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

In other words, the voters of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will decide the presidential election for the entire country, and the voters of Michigan have now been informed that, for all intents and purposes, their votes don't matter and they can stay home. More importantly, the pundits will be calling the election before the polls even close in our nation's most populous state, thus rendering California's citizens' votes meaningless, since the Republicans will have conceded that state based on its electors' Democratic tendencies.

There have been many anomalies in Presidential elections throughout our history, most of which would have been avoided through a true popular vote. In 1836, one party, the Whigs, ran three different candidates in three separate sections of the country. The purpose was to ensure a Whig majority in the Electoral College by appealing to the particular desires of each demographic. The plan was foiled when the electors chose Democratic-Republican candidate Martin Van Buren by absolute majority - but the electors themselves found Van Buren's Vice-Presidential candidate so objectionable that they failed to vote for him. Thus it was left to the Senate to make the determination, and it chose Richard Johnson, the running mate, as Vice President.

The means through which our electors vote today do not necessarily preclude such a bizarre scenario from reoccurring. It is possible that an Electoral College could select Barack Obama, but refuse to recognize Joe Biden, thus turning the election of a Vice-President to the Senate. Such a scenario would certainly render the President impotent, because in our party system (which the founders were trying to avoid), the candidate's first and most telling decision is that of a running mate.

There are a number of reasons to believe that this system should be scrapped, but the most important is its inability to accurately reflect the will of the American people. This argument was made by Republicans in 1992 when the party noted that Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote, but was a clear winner in the Electoral College. And it is true he did not win the majority of votes - but he won more popular votes than either George H.W. Bush or Ross Perot, thus claiming a clear victory under the most "democratic" of principles.

The 2000 election also produced a winner who did not garnish the majority of the popular vote. The contrast, and the most telling reason why the current system should be abolished, is that the declared winner, George W. Bush, did not even win the most votes. Democrat Al Gore, according to the FEC, won over 500,000 more popular votes than did our current President (see FEC/GOV/2000). It will be left for history to decide how this travesty has affected our nation and our world.

In conclusion, I would submit that, in spite of our Constitution's creation of a republican form of government, an amendment allowing a democratically-elected President is now imperative. The President of the United States is, at least for now, the most powerful person on earth. If we desire to maintain our status as a leader in world that has evolved in startling fashion since our founding, we must allow our peoples' voice to be heard over that of outdated, unworkable tradition. One voice must carry the same weight as any other, and one vote must count as much in Kentucky as it does in Florida. Our people must elect our President.

Dano: Keep the Electoral College System...It's What the Founders Wanted

Okay, folks. Following a lengthy time during which I didn't feel I could do justice to the debates because of my head injuries, I'm getting back into it. While things are still difficult, I think I can function well enough, now, to give this a shot.

This week, the coin-flip says I argue for maintaining the Electoral College system for presidential and vice-presidential elections.


The "Problem" with the Electoral College

So, what is the big stink? Why are we asking this week's question?

While Reed will likely bring up other issues, the most prevalent complaint is simple. Under the Electoral College system, it is entirely possible for the majority of voters to vote for one party's candidates, and the other party's candidates to win the election. How? Easy.

Let's say that the eleven states with the highest number of electoral votes all vote for the Democratic candidates. These states and their numbers of electoral votes are: California (55), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15). Their combined electoral votes equal 271, a sufficient number to win the presidency/vice presidency. But, remember, even in these states, the votes might have been very close; each state may have chosen the winners based upon a bare majority of the popular vote. If every other state in the country, either by a simple majority or an overwhelming majority, voted for the Republican ticket, the total collective nationwide popular vote would be overwhelmingly for the Republican ticket, but the electoral votes of the largest eleven states would have put the Democrats into office. We recently had a mismatch between the popular vote and the electoral vote, and thus, a controversial outcome. This was only the third time in our country's history that such a mismatch occurred, but it was so distressing to a great many voters that it may have been the most important wonky election result ever.

Many will recall the 2000 election, wherein George W. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266, but Al Gore won the popular vote by more than 543,000 votes nationwide. Bush did not win via an electoral majority based upon the aforementioned largest eleven states, but won via a simple majority of the electoral vote from all states. The noted official count of the popular votes is independent of the Florida recount question (where many believe that Gore won more of the Florida vote than was actually counted). In other words, even after the official recounts were completed, Gore still had the advantage in popular votes. Many Americans who believe that the popular vote should have mattered in the election outcome have since been vocal opponents of the Electoral College system, whether they opposed it before the election or not. The crux of the issue for these folks, I believe, is the relative importance of the will of the people in choosing our highest elected officials. To be fair, neither candidate in 2000 won a majority of the popular vote (Gore, 48.38%, Bush, 47.87%), but Gore did have more of the popular vote. How could it be okay for more voters to select one party's ticket, and the electoral system to select the other? While I appreciate fairness as much as the next voter, my answer may anger some readers.

The Electoral College is The Best Solution

My primary argument in favor of the Electoral College centers around two things: 1) my own belief that average people don't necessarily make good voters, and 2) the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College, and they were really, really smart people.

My own beliefs, first. I don't know exactly how or when I developed my views on this issue, but I feel them pretty strongly. I have long been annoyed by campaigns to "get out the vote" because my sense is that people who are politically engaged - those who care about things political - are already registered voters. For instance, if you care enough about what happens in the halls of Congress to exercise your singular voting power to affect legislation, would you not already be an active voter? To be sure, everyone's concerns about political things are proportionate to the amount of political activity that affects their interests. If you are an investor in the stock market, you are more likely to be concerned about legislative actions that affect the value of your investments on Wall Street than would be a non-investor. If you are a property owner, you are more likely to vote on a local referendum on property taxes than would be a renter. From this standpoint, many non-registered citizens are either not aware of the impacts of lawmakers or leaders on their lives, or there are insufficient concerns for them to get involved and to actually vote.

In all candor, I don't care nearly as much about local elections as I do national ones. But I did when I owned a business, here. At that point, I had concerns relative to the health and welfare of my retail store, my employees' job stability, my own administrative load, and my financial exposure due to business costs, taxes, and other such things. When there would arise a local concern about sales tax increases, it mattered to me. When the local city and county governments talked about consolidation that would affect police services, fire services, EMT services, costs of licensure, tax rates, and other issues, it mattered to me. But I no longer own a business, and I don't currently pay property taxes. In short, there are not a lot of local issues that directly affect me greatly, though I try to stay apprised of those issues that might. Nonetheless, because of my lack of vested interests in local issues, I tend not to vote in local elections as consistently as I do national ones.

The same things can be said about some citizens who do not register to vote, and/or don't ever participate in national elections. Perhaps they are unconcerned about whether there is welfare reform, or whether we allow illegal migrant workers to become citizens in some way, or whether taxes for people above the poverty line go up or down. Maybe some of them get lots of help from the government, with community health clinics and with unemployment benefits for six months whenever they might need them. Maybe they even rationalize that, regardless of their concerns, their one little solitary vote won't count in the scheme of things. In each of these cases, there is a lack of sufficient concern about their ability to have an important impact on political happenings to make them educate themselves about candidates or issues. This lack of education, and the associated lack of concern, is (I believe) at the root of voter apathy in this country. But is it really smart, or even okay, for such uninvolved and uneducated people to register and subsequently vote for a candidate based solely upon some unimportant characteristics of the individual candidate, or upon the quasi-authority they personally assign to a preferred commentator or their chosen TV news channel? Voting without a thorough understanding of at least some of the relevant issues, and at least a cursory understanding of the political platform of the candidates, is neither okay nor desirable. Voting for Barack Obama because he's the first viable African American candidate, or for John McCain because he was a POW and he chose a really cute running mate that winks at you through your TV screen is not okay. Voting for the Democratic ticket because Keith Olbermann doesn't like Rush Limbaugh, or for the Republicans because you thought Bill Clinton was an adulterous scoundrel is not okay. Put simply, don't vote if you don't care or if you don't understand the substantive differences between the candidates and/or the issues.

Why be concerned about how many people vote? Primarily, candidates feel that the more people of their party they register to vote, the greater their total number of collective votes will be. Assuming there is no "close call" in a given state, having the majority of votes will gain you the electoral votes you want. Moreover, regardless of winning via electoral majority, if candidates get more than 50% of the popular vote, they feel they have a public "mandate" to push forward their platform promises. So, the way things are, popular vote numbers still matter under the Electoral College system. For pragmatic reasons if not others, politicians don't seem to care about whether their voters are well-involved political students. Nonetheless, this concern about voters being thoughtful and well-informed, if not having a vested interest in political outcomes, is not just unique to me. In fact, it was at the very heart of the development of the Electoral College system. Read on.

The Founding Fathers' Intentions


Whenever a question comes up about the meaning of a loosely constructed or vague Constitutional provision, legal and political scholars often seek the guidance of other historical documents to decipher the intent of our Founding Fathers. What were they thinking? Why did they write it this particular way? One of the most instructive sources of their intent is the body of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written by many of the most preeminent statesmen of the day prior to our Independence. Many would suggest that the Federalist Papers were, in fact, sort of a first draft of the U.S. Constitution. The unique characteristic of these essays is that they are more like a thought diary, or the closest thing we have to a transcript of their debates on important issues that would later become Constitutional provisions.

The genesis of the Electoral College system, and, more specifically, the Founders' intentions with regard to the system of voting for our highest Federal leaders, is clearly illustrated in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, Federalist No. 68, authored largely by Alexander Hamilton, explains why the Founders wanted a group of electors to vote on behalf of the population, rather than counting on the citizens through a tally of their personal votes. Within their language, I find an uncanny similarity to my own personal belief about voters needing to be educated and involved before voting. The following language is from Federalist No. 68, although I have added the italics to sections that are particularly salient:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so an important trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

 It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

See http://federalistpapers.com/federalist68.html for more details.

Clearly, the Founders were concerned that only qualified people actually vote for our highest leaders. Suggesting that a "small number" of people, "most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations," clearly reflects their desire that actual voters for president and vice president be uniquely qualified to make these important decisions - the clear implication being that average citizens (the "general mass") were not. While the "general mass" of today is a whole lot better educated generally than were the masses in our Founders' day, the apathetic voter of today is just as dangerous as the unqualified voters were then.

The Founders reckoned that the best way to insure that the actual votes being cast were done by thoughtful and qualified persons was to form what would later be known as the Electoral College, the body of proxies that would vote on behalf of the less-than-qualified average citizens. Nonetheless, they regarded the popular vote as important enough to be taken into account by the electors. And changes to the Constitution as well as state election laws have made the system, while not perfect, more fair today than ever before. It is simply a rarity, as in the 2000 election, that the popular vote majority does not end up choosing the winning presidential ticket.

Other Benefits of the Electoral College

Philosophical considerations aside, there are other important advantages inherent in the Electoral College system. I'll list a couple below, but there are many more. See http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php for more information.

One additional and important benefit is that the Electoral College eliminates the detrimental effects of disparities between voter turnout in various states. For instance, if November 4th finds the bulk of the country enjoying fair weather, but the New England states buried in eight feet of snow (which therefore prevents large numbers of Northern voters from getting to the polls), the states adversely affected still have their appointed numbers of electoral votes. In other words, even in a case where only 15% of voters can vote, so long as the proportional differences between the numbers of Democratic votes and Republican votes remains relatively constant within, say, Connecticut, that state will still have it's full number of allotted electoral votes. Imagine the detrimental affect, however, if we used a popular vote total, instead. Suddenly, the bad weather in traditionally Democratic Connecticut might unfairly compromise the Democrats nationally, because the solidly Republican central plains states see high voter turnout because their weather is pleasant. Under the Electoral College system, Connecticut still gets their seven electoral votes - even with only 15% voter turnout. Iowa, which may have had 60% voter turnout under good weather conditions, also only gets its seven allotted electoral votes. So the Electoral College manages to even out voter turnout differences while maintaining dependence on the popular vote within each state.

Another benefit of the Electoral College is that it isolates each state from all the others, and, therefore, isolates election problems as well. In other words, because the current system means that every state chooses its own rules and methods for generating the final state electoral tally, it is far easier to identify irregularities in voting infrastructure (think "hanging chad" from election 2000). Recounts necessitated by voting anomalies within a single state are more efficient than a nationwide recount in such a circumstance.

So, in the final analysis, there is nothing inherently wrong with the Electoral College system. Except in the rarest of cases, the power of individual votes still determines how the citizens of each state collectively vote for president and vice president. The advantages of the system are several-fold, but the fact that the College satisfies the Founding Fathers' desire that voters be educated, discerning, and interested persons is of the highest importance.

Reed: America Can't Afford Four More Years

Welcome back to the blog, folks. As a follow up to last week's topic, "Is Barack Obama qualified to be President?", it was only logical to present his opponent in the same format. And the coin toss dictates that I will argue that Senator John McCain is not the most qualified candidate for the presidency.

Let me begin by saying that I honor, as do the vast majority of Americans, Sen. McCain's military service and agree that he is a bona fide hero. And his service to America through his many years in the Senate is commendable. But experience in and of itself is not a qualification. America needs someone, now more than ever, who can inspire us to achieve positive results. John McCain has not demonstrated, in this campaign, that he has that capability.

McCain has spent the majority of the last few months not touting his own record, but ridiculing his opponent. In spite of a pledge to conduct a positive, issue-oriented campaign, his statements have been pointedly critical of Sen. Obama while not explaining why he is the more credible choice.

A prime example is the recent flap over Obama's suggestion that Americans should check their tire pressure to insure they are getting the maximum fuel economy in their automobiles. The McCain campaign handed out tire pressure gauges engraved with the message, "Obama Energy Plan." McCain said in a speech that Obama "doesn't want to drill, he doesn't want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires."

Apparently, and to his credit, Sen. McCain has since done a little research, and has learned that indeed, even the American Automobile Association advocates making sure tires are properly inflated for maximum fuel economy. During an appearance in Ohio on August 5, McCain pointed out Triple A's corroboration of Sen. Obama's suggestion and said, "I don't disagree with that."

Oh, Lord - another "flip-flop".

That phrase, "flip-flop", is getting very old. I admire anyone who, after reasonably discussing an issue and being willing to learn, can say, "maybe I was wrong." Many in Congress have done so when it comes to their votes supporting the war in Iraq. But Sen. McCain, while criticizing how the war was conducted, has stubbornly resisted admitting that the decision to go to war was a mistake, in spite of the fact that, in a recent AP-Ipsos poll, 56 percent of Americans said that invading Iraq was a mistake, 62 percent disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war, and 66 percent oppose the war in general. (see www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm). So, Americans' stated desires notwithstanding, Sen. McCain is willing to stand with President Bush and support this unpopular war, with no timetable for withdrawal, thus continuing the policies of the current administration.

And here is my greatest fear, and the most compelling reason that I believe Sen. McCain should be denied the White House. Eight years of failed policies, both foreign and domestic, can not and should not be continued. And in spite of his disputes with the administration, the "maverick" John McCain has voted with Bush far more than he has voted against him. In fact, Sen. Obama recently pointed out that McCain "decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time." And, according to the Congressional Quarterly, his statement is accurate (see www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html).

America simply cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies. There is too much at stake, for our economy, our environment, our security and our future. We must chart a new course, and we need new leadership in order to be successful. John McCain is not the man to lead America now. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

Dano: The Case for McCain

After the flip this week, I advocate for John McCain as president.

Let's face it, folks. There is no doubt whatsoever that McCain has a very long history of public service. He is a bona fide war hero (okay...those of you that claim he was a traitor---prove it). You don't spend five plus years as a tortured prisoner of war during Viet Nam, and even turn down an offer of release because fellow U.S. POWs were not also offered release, unless you are a true patriot (McCain was offfered the release after his father, Admiral John S. McCain Jr., was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Viet Nam theater--this was a propaganda move by the Viet Namese authorities, and McCain refused his release). While in the Navy, he even served as commander of a Naval air squadron of 1,000 men following his time in Viet Nam. McCain has been in the U.S. Senate for twenty-two years, and served two terms in the House of Representatives prior to that. He is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and serves on the Readiness, Personnel, and Seapower Subcommittees. He has been a vocal opponent of pork barrel spending and of filibustering on judicial nominations. For more on his Congressional history, see http://mccain.senate.gov/public/. For his military service history, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain. He clearly has tremendous experience to bring to the presidency.

The only argument of any weight against McCain, as near as I can tell, is that he represents "more of the same" conservative, pro-war, Bush-type governing. But that's not altogether fair. He believed the Administration's reports about what the issues were in Iraq--didn't we all at first? Afterwards, while John McCain supported the troop surge of 2007, he would not have had to do so if the war had been run properly. He said from the beginning that he thought the war would be won quickly, and it really was. I don't believe he ever said that we would know how to keep the peace quickly, or that we would come home shortly after a military victory (if anyone has evidence of the contrary, please feel free to correct me on this). He expected more of the Bush Administration than he (or any of us) got. Put simply, you can win a military victory against what is essentially a third-world power quite easily, but if you don't have the proper exit strategy, you get bogged down in a never-ending defensive battle against all those who seek anarchy and disruption in your nation-building efforts. Bush never properly developed a strategy for helping the Iraq Government take over their own security, or for keeping whatever peace he thought our involvement might have afforded.

McCain has certainly agreed with President Bush on most issues, and his record reflects this. However, he has been less than complimentary on Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq. It is his very lengthy and honorable military experience, and, thus, his views on how the war should be conducted, that makes him look different from Bush. And nobody can argue that we need a different strategy than that of the great "decider." John McCain is uniquely qualified to bring about the strategic changes necessary to finally and honestly exclaim mission accomplished! To read Reed's point of view, click here.

Reed: Obama for President - YES

The coin has fallen, and I take the role of Obama advocate. It's not too difficult, either, because when one considers the foibles and fallacies of the previous eight years (can you say "I'm the decider"?), it's easy to assume that anyone who has said he/she won't follow current policy is the obvious choice.

Barack Obama's critics will first and foremost stress his inexperience, especially when it comes to foreign policy. John McCain lambasted Obama for offering his opinions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in spite of the fact that "he's only been to Iraq once, and has never been to Afghanistan." Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! And what happened? I think McCain has learned the truth in the old adage, be careful what you wish for - you may get it.

Obama went to Iraq and Afghanistan, talked to the troops and commanders, and conferred with leaders of those and other countries whose interests are affected. He then moved on to Europe, where he spoke to more than 200,000 people in Germany, many of whom were waving American flags as a tribute to one who they perceived to be a viable ally and leader.

Tell me please, when was the last time our allies in Europe felt compelled to wave our flag instead of burn it?

Be that as it may, the "inexperience" argument may fly with some, until we consider some history. Another politician from Illinois made it to the White House in 1861. Prior to his ascension to the Presidency, Abraham Lincoln served eight years in the Illionois General Assembly and two years in the U.S. House of Representatives - a total of ten years in political office.
Compare that to Senator Obama - seven years in the Illinois Senate, three years in the U.S. Senate, ten years in political office. Whoa - coincidence? Experience is only as important as the skills and wisdom we gain from it. Many experienced politicians, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon among them, failed the nation and her citizens through poor leadership and unwise decisions in spite of years of experience.

Leaders are indeed born, and from his early years, Barack Obama has proven himself a leader. Coming from a modest background, he graduated from Columbia University and went on to Harvard Law School where, in 1990, he became the first African-American President of the prestigious Harvard Law Review (see http://www.notablebiographies.com). After graduation from Harvard he turned down high-paying jobs with Manhattan law firms to move to Chicago and focus on civil rights law.

This is the kind of decision-making skill that gets one's head carved into a granite monument on a mountainside - foregoing the pleasures that money and power can bring to work for the greater good. And it is decision-making skills, as opposed to experience, that make the difference between a politician and a statesman.

Perhaps the most compelling reason I have for believing that Senator Obama is indeed qualified to lead our nation rests in a story that began in October of 2002. Support was growing for the Bush Administration's push for military action in Iraq. No facts supported such a strategy, so the administration used lies, innuendo and faulty intelligence to prod Congress into approving a war resolution. Sixty-one percent of Democrats in the House and Senate approved the President's request for authorization of military force against Saddam's regime.

(For more information, see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution).

And it is interesting to note that many, including 2004 Presidential nominee John Kerry and Obama's primary rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, both subsequently expressed regret for their support of the resolution. The 2006 Congressional elections were a clear sign that the American public was tired of a trumped-up war that Americans now felt should never have been waged.

But in a speech in Chicago on the eve of Congress' approval of the resolution, Obama, then a state Senator from Illinois, spoke passionately of the need to avoid the war in Iraq. In his speech he called on America to avoid what he referred to as "a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics" (see citation link, next paragraph). And while he agreed with President Bush that Saddam Hussein was a dictator whose removal would be applauded, he noted, correctly, as the facts have demonstrated, that Saddam's government and military were bankrupt and impotent and posed no grave danger to the world.

Senator Obama then spoke words which still ring with prescience. "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." (The text of the speech can be found at many sources, including http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343).

When a young, vibrant, passionate man stands and presents himself to the nation and the world in such a powerful and prophetic manner, the reasonable person can only listen, and observe, and agree - this man, Barack Obama, has the mind, the heart, and the soul of a leader. I say, let's let him lead. To read Dano's point of view, click here.

This week's topic: Obama as President?

Alright. This is going to be fascinating. This week's topic, "Obama as President?" is full of possibilities. Let's go over the ground rules.

Please understand the following:

The two of us have flipped a coin to decide who will go "pro" and who will go "con" on the weekly issue. Our posts do NOT reflect our personal politics, and those who know us personally are asked not to attack either of us for being "traitors" to a point of view (see SITE RULES in sidebar). The idea behind what we are doing is to teach everyone (and ourselves) how to better discuss and debate issues without resorting to diatribe, passion, emotion, or any other "less than rational" dialog. Any comment that includes vulgarity, name-calling, or any statements that are not supported by empirical data or honest emotion (without disrespect) will not be tolerated on this blog, and are not welcome here. If you feel strongly about an issue, feel free to say why, but please back your position up with a citation to the reference material from which you learned your point of view.

We intend to support our "pro and con" positions with neutral fact websites or other neutral resources such that every post we make is beyond reproach from a journalistic standpoint. In the case that we get information from a less than neutral website (and we will endeavor to figure this out in advance), we will indicate that in our posts. To the extent that we succeed at this, this site should flourish. We've called it an experiment; this is partly because we don't know if we can do it by the rules, but we will try. We ask only that commenters try as well. Please see the section on site rules in the sidebar. Note that it is our hope that all participants, including your hosts, but also school teachers and college professors will utilize this site to help people learn how argument and persuasion can and should be done. This means there is no room for vulgarity, name calling, or angry and unsupported rhetoric. If you don't follow comment rules, your comment will be removed. Young people may be reading here! Please act accordingly!

For posting rules, which reiterate these points and others, please see the sidebar entitled: Site Rules.

What will follow are individual postings by Dano and Reed on the topic for this week. Please feel free to comment on them, and expect us to comment on each others' posts as well. This is a learning process for us all.

One administrative note: we are attempting to have comments show up immediately under the relevant posts, but this has proven to be a glitch on our hosting site. If you want to see your comment, for now, you must click on the small "comments" link below the post. This will bring up a screen that shows all comments for each post, and you can bring up the original post there as well. We're trying to fix this problem.