Thread: Our greatest president?

Originally Posted by tw-acs

well enough with who wasnt the best president but who was the best president. I personally think that the best president can never be when the people do not elect him. I think the electoral college is an abomination to the democratic republic governmnet we have. So as long as this is in effect we can not, will not have our best president

OK, Let's do this by-the-numbers, Shall We?

1.NOTHING about the election of G.W.Bush was done unconstittutionally., Nothing.

2.The Electoral College system was concieved BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. It has many advantages, and one, tiny, drawback. That being that it is possible for a candidate who recieves fewer total votes nationwide to actually be elected. This drawback is outweighed by the other advantages of the system.

3.Many (24) states require, by law, that the electors from their state actually vote for the candidate that carried the state in the general election, thus eliminating the "risk" of a revolt by the electoral college, putting in place someone other than the winning candidate.

4.States have three main routes in choosing electors: the legislative system, where state legislatures choose the electors; a district system, where electors are selected by the people of each congressional district; and the general ticket, or a winner-take-all system, where a popular vote is held in the entire state, and the winner takes all electoral votes. Reform efforts have been made, but the constitution is very clear that it is each state’s own decision of how to choose electors. This is one right that congress definitely does not have to change. No state still uses the legislative system, and only two, I believe, use the district system.
Their is a "statistical" possibility that a president could be elected with only 12% of the popular vote, but thier is also a statistical possibility of the world ending tomorrow. Both ignore the practical realities of why
people vote the way they do, and to what degree geographic location determines voting trends.

5.The electoral college has been vilified for magnifying the influence of smaller population states "Out-of-Proportion" to the general population. Is this a bad thing? In case no one let you in on it, this nation is a "Democratic, Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The will of the majority does not always rule! A little thought will reveal to you why this is a good thing. (This DOES NOT mean that the minority rules, just that they are protected from the excess' and emotional tides of the majority.) There are really only two things that prevent smaller pop. states from total maginalization and national political irrelevancy: A. The two senators-per-state system, B. The electoral college.

I could go on, but I've made my point. I presume you are from a populous state, probably a metro area, and hold polical views that you feel are enlightened. Try to envision a USA where government policy is made and enforced in the way you believe would be best, but your views are not those held by those in positions of power.
Does this alter your perception of the way things should be done?

Winston Churchhill said, "the electoral college system is probably the worst possible method of choosing a president-except for all the others."

BTW, Is MJ the single most important topic in national politics today?


*Glennon, Michael J. When No Majority Rules. Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Inc, 1992.

It is impossible, at this point, to place any president after Nixon in the proper historical perspective to judge them.

Our current president has my support, but he is taking ENORMOUS risks worldwide. IF he wins, American Hegemony is virtually assured for decades, and the economy will soldier on just the way we want it to. If he loses, the entire first half of the 21st century will NOT be remembered as a fun time. Not for us, not for anyone, anywhere.

Presidents are often magnified by the lens of (foreign) war. Being a great president in peacetime is difficult. (Can YOU name the greatest accountant in the world?, Now, quick, name three great war heros.)

Presidents who oversaw wars:
George Washington FF
Thomas Jefferson: FF
James Madison FF
James Polk
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
George W. Bush

I eliminated the Presidents who were exclusively involved the suppressing Native Americans, no glory there in modern view. Exceptions: 1st 3, founding fathers, as such, famous without war association. Also cut Buchanan and Harding (Very begining and tail end of conflicts)

Presidents who saw only peace:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
James Garfield
Chester Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Theodore Roosevelt
William Taft
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter

Except for Grant and Roosevelt (both famous for war B4 presidency), it's not a memorable list, is it?


The greatest president, without question, had to be Abraham Lincoln. Absent his vision and strong leadership, the Union would have dissolved. The world would have faced the challenges of the tail of the 19th century, and into the 20th without a United States of America. The imagination boggles at the potential consequences. It is not just we, in America, who owe this man so much, rather, it is the people of the world who owe the debt. Wherever there is freedom in the world today, a part of that freedom is owed to that one man.

The same cannot, in my NSHO, be said of anyone else, not even Washington.

There is a whole line of thinking that Lincoln was RESPONSIBLE for the civil war. To those that subscribe to that belief, he was one of the all time worst presidents.

All a matter of perception.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

There is a whole line of thinking that Lincoln was RESPONSIBLE for the civil war. To those that subscribe to that belief, he was one of the all time worst presidents.

All a matter of perception.

Perhaps.

However, my perception is that James Buchanan was the president when the Civil War started, so pinning the blame on Lincoln might be a tad difficult. (Tad Lincoln, that's a Pun there.)

so when was the last time you read the constitution? the senat determines which candidate will beocme president not the supreme court
and a large number of those justices were appointed by his father.

the disproportion of vote per elector or voting power you are saying that if 10 people live is STATE and 1 person lives in state they shoudl have the same voting power

at the time of the condeption of the electoral college it took months for news to travel so obvioulsy citizens could not be properly infomred allowing them to vote in the best interset of themselves. however this forum is on the internet which is one of amny forsm of communicatin such as radio, tv, and cell phones.

24 0f 50 now let me do the math tahts 26 votes taht can say anyway and wow that just happens to be majority

now obviuosly you dont read my replies very clearly as a democratic republic which i have already used this term before. Maybe you dont know what taht means that was a governmnetal system of the roman empire the senate you not a applicable to the way votes are tabulated.

you speak of minority and majority but ithink you mean large states and small states. understand persons that live in a state are different and though generally have similiar views they are not the same so to say one group of people is the majority and minority is incorrect in this case becasue they are states

Hey TW, your tinfoil hat is falling off your head.

Might want to fix that...

Apparently I've read the constitution rather more extensively than you have.

(quoting tw-acs) "...the senat determines which candidate will beocme president not the supreme court..."

From Article II, Section I:

... The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President..."


The United States Supreme Court indirectly determined the outcome of the election (which is not unconstitutional). I don't feel like rehashing the whole thing, I've done it to death in other arenas already.

One vote per state. What if it had been a 50/50 split (good chance), remember who the Speaker of the House was in 2000? He would have cast the tie-breaking vote.

(Quoting tw-acs):
"at the time of the condeption of the electoral college it took months for news to travel so obvioulsy citizens could not be properly infomred allowing them to vote in the best interset of themselves. however this forum is on the internet which is one of amny forsm of communicatin such as radio, tv, and cell phones."

The primary reason for the adoption of the electoral system (quoting from an excellent article by Eric Wikman who, by the way, supports the abolishment of the EC)
"...Most delegates did not think that the American democracy had matured enough to offer a direct vote. It was still an unstable government. Sure enough, the arguments that were made in favor of this system were presented for the future generations of America. Madison said, "with all [the direct election’s] imperfections, "that he, "liked the best(Peirce 41)." After all the president is to guard the people from the legislature, therefore he should be selected by the people. But most drafters believed that the people were generally misinformed and easily misled..."

SO, you're partially correct, at least to the extent I can determine what you said...

(quoting tw-acs):
"the disproportion of vote per elector or voting power you are saying that if 10 people live is STATE and 1 person lives in state they shoudl have the same voting power"

Well, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but if you want to wander off into the land of hypothetical states...Could you explain yourself a little bit more clearly here?

(quoting tw-acs):
"24 0f 50 now let me do the math tahts 26 votes taht can say anyway and wow that just happens to be majority "

Yup, 26 states allow their electors to follow their conscience. Do you know what that means practically? (As opposed to hypothetically?) It means that the people they select as electors WILL DO AS THEY ARE TOLD. The states political parties TRUST them. Do you know how the electors are chosen? Most of them are aligned with the party of the candidate that is running. Should they fail to vote for that candidate their politcal career would be over. Rather a strong incentive to faithfulness.

Oh, and as to "...a large number of those justices were appointed by his father. "

Ford-1
Reagan-4
Bush-2
Clinton-2

Two is a large number now? It seems I'm not the only one with a problem when it comes to the concept of a Majority...Anyway, who appointed them is irrelevant. If you think you can make a case that the United States Supreme Court is influences by who nominated them, I'd be happy to see the evidence.

But be VERY careful...Do you really want to go down that road? Because if you do, I've got a number of previous court decisions I'd love to discuss with you.

Look, I could go on here, but I believe I've made my point.

It has come to my attention that some of the things I have spoken of have been misunderstood. There is a proper way in which a vote is counted. That is most simply to count it. According to the Constitution and one's interpretation one could come to a different conclusion. You have the one that everything was performed correctly in the election of 2002. Or the one that believes that the procedure for a vote is that all ballots must be counted. Since in the 2002 election not all of the votes were counted. The House of Representives votes on the dispute. Since that had not happened it allowed the position (Supreme Court Justices that are appointed by the president to be appointed by that position. Some how the logic of our government and knowing we have ideas such as the separation of powers and the checks and balances that this is not right. It can be argued constitutional or not unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to say that the president should be elected by popular vote, however, I suggest that a reformation of our current system due to technological advances and social changes reflecting a more stable union.

There is one thing I do notice about some of the individuals that are on this forum and that is you do not act in accordance with my interpretation of the rules. Specifically rule #2.

Hmm....

Well anyways, tw-acs was referring to Article II, Section I, clause III of the Constitution where it refers to how a president should be chosen if neither had the majority or whatever. In a disputed election, the HR only casts their votes after all electoral votes have been cast, not before. In the case of Florida, the electoral votes had not been cast, therefore it was not under the HR's jurdistiction to cast ballots to choose the president. I explained it to him over MSN.

I don't believe I have engaged in any personal attacks, other than adopting a snide attitude.

As to this whole discussion about the Electoral College, I was responding, primarily, to this statement:

(quoting tw-acs)):
"I think the electoral college is an abomination to the democratic republic governmnet we have. So as long as this is in effect we can not, will not have our best president ."

I have not, as yet, addressed your contention, which I underlined above, would you care to explain it?

You said in your last post that:

(quoting tw-acs):
"...You have the one that everything was performed correctly in the election of 2002."

Strictly speaking, I did not say that. The Florida debacle was a cluster-you-know-what. But unconstitutional? THAT is a harder case to make.

Also, while the U.S. is indeed "stable", demographic trends, especially in California and Texas (which, along with New York, are almost absolutely REQUIRED to carry the White House) tend to indicate a possible de-stabilization in the not-to-distant future.

tw-acs, may I call you TW? You don't know me from other forums as well as some others here do. That being the case, I feel compelled to point out something.

I do not take this stuff personally. Nor do I mean it personally. I may beat you over the head with a point (There are a few posters I defer to, mostly out of abject terror (LOL, right Snipe, ol' buddy?)), but it never gets my BP above 120/80.

Oh, One other little detail, I'm very arrogant, just in case you hadn't noticed.

Although the opinion that ended the Florida recount was unsigned, the 4 justices who wrote parts of the dissent were as follows:

Stevens-Ford

Souter-Bush

Ginsburg-Clinton

Breyer-Clinton

Thus one half of the Bush appointees (50%) disagreed, in whole or part, with the decision.

It is interesting that 100% of the Clinton appointees seemed to come down "against Bush" if you will.

TW is wounded because i said he wears a tinfoil hat.

I think that strictly speaking on a war and peace basis, Woodrow Wilson was the best Prez. Among other things he
1: tried to keep the peace as long as he could
2: kept the US neutral during most of the war
3: but when enough was enough, he came in, kicked ass,
4: forced treaties down everybody's throat in an attempt to stop a war of such magnitude ever happening again,
5: AND THEN formed a worldwide orginization in order to perserve world peace.

Only blunder he made IMHO is that he founded the League of Nations, but refused to join it, therefore stripping it of any power it might have had with the newest Superpower in it.

Originally Posted by bigross86

I think that strictly speaking on a war and peace basis, Woodrow Wilson was the best Prez.

Interesting statement. Not many would pick Wilson as best, but historians do rate him higher than the people in general. His was actually a very interesting time in office. He was a very intelligent man.