Humanities desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 23

Religious divisions: leadership vs dogma

The major divisions in Islam started as a dispute over who would be Muhammad's successor. The major divisions of Mormonism started with the dispute over the succession to Joseph Smith. At least two of the divisions within mainstream Christianity started with disputes over the authority of the Bishop of Rome as supreme leader of the church. Compared to this, how common is it for a religion to split based on questions of dogma rather than leadership? --Carnildo (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happens all the time as well. See Protestantism for such a split regarding Chritianity. --Jayron32 01:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Protestant Reformation was due to issues like corruption and the desire to escape Rome's secular control, as well as doctrine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather a strong contrast between Islam and Christianity that until relatively recent times almost all major Christian divisions involved a doctrinal element (so that the Catholic-Orthodox split was ostensibly about the filioque clause, etc.), while most major Muslim divisions were much more about who had the right to lead the Muslim community (as ruler, not just religious leader) than abstract questions of doctrine as such. I don't know that one is worse or better than another -- depending on whether you think it's sillier to dispute "about a vowel" (as the homoousianist vs. homoioousianist controversy is sometimes claimed to have been), or to hold active current grudges about 7th-century political conflicts (as is involved in the Sunni-Shi`ah split), etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ruled most of Arabia on his death, so the issue of who succeeded him was of more importance than who succeeded e.g. Martin Luther. When Christian religious authorities held temporal power or were close to kings, there were Christian schisms based largely on power, e.g. the Western Schism in the 14th and 15th centuries, and the English Reformation which was partly a reaction against Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor's designs for influence in England (he was the nephew of Henry's first wife Catherine of Aragon). Although this is getting away from the original question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're asking about smaller religions as well, but all Bahá'í divisions have started over leadership. As for Christianity, doctrinal tensions have always abounded, but at least in the early Church, they seem to have usually been resolved easily enough. Acts Ch 15 records a debate over circumcision, and in Galatians 2, Paul even accuses Peter of hypocrisy for refusing to associate publicly with Gentiles, but I've never heard of the argument going much further. See Judaizers for more. More relevant might be the Donatist controversy, which produced a genuine split with Rome over a matter at least partially concerning doctrine. Here, though, one sees that doctrine and personalities are impossible to fully separate anyway, since the dispute was about the validity of sacraments administered by (allegedly) sinful priests. It's one thing to say they disagreed about the sacraments, and another to say they argued about who could confer them. IBE (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Arianism, which kept the Church occupied for a while. This and similar differences of Christology really kept the church(es) occupied for quite a long while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Syriac Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church and other eastern churches split from Rome over similar issues about the dual nature of Jesus following the Council of Chalcedon.

The various modern divisions of Judaism are largely based on doctrine. And the number and variety of different Schools of Buddhism make Christianity look doctrinally unified - the history is rather vague and Wikipedia's articles aren't very good but doctrine played a part in many schisms. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a slight issue with the original question — church government is a doctrinal matter in many Christian denominations. Catholic theology of church government depends on the existence of a Pope with supremacy over all other clergymen, while Orthodox theology of church government teaches that it's not appropriate to have a single clergyman atop everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a theory I remember reading a long time ago (can't for the life of me remember where), that suggested that any original teaching will only hold together as long as the original teacher lives (because the original teacher is the only one who understands it fully). after his/her death, his inner core of followers will divide along differing interpretations of that original teaching (based on the limited understanding of those inner-core members), and those divisions will gather differing crowds (because the third tier of followers understands the teaching even less, and is more susceptible to the authority of the second tier), and after that these divisions will solidify into clearly defined sects with divergent dogma. It's an interesting theory - every religion I know about shows some signs of it - but until I can remember the source you'll have to take it with a grain of salt. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you reckon it's happening in Scientology yet? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already happened: see Free Zone (Scientology). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. I wouldn't have expected it. That supports Ludwig's theory very well. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is supports Ludwig's theory in particular, rather than more general sociological and anthropological observations of the issue: successful religions are often (almost always?) founded by a charismatic individual (often an 'outsider') who rebels against existing dogma, and/or the political/religious establishment. Charisma only lasts while the founder lives, obviously, and if the new religion has been successful, it will have become 'the establishment' - so the cycle can begin again. If I remember correctly, an Islamic scholar (I can't remember his name) wrote on this very subject some centuries back. If you're interested in the subject, there is masses of material available, but I'd recommend getting hold of Peter Worsley's The Trumpet Shall Sound: A study of "cargo cults" in Melanesia. Dated, and flawed in some ways, but a fascinating analysis of the dynamics of 'religion-building' in an unfamiliar context - and the unfamiliarity actually helps in gaining insight into the underlying processes, at least in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who will become president of the United States if....

Let's say, that for some reason, the President, Vice President, and all the people who may succeed the president were aboard a plane, and it crashed, killing all on-board. Who will become president now? Also, what if they were all at the Capitol, and there was a nuclear explosion, again killing everyone? Who will become president? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nuclear explosion killed everyone, eliminating any need for leadership at all. →Σ τ c. 06:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what if they died in a plane crash? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by everyone, I meant everyone in the Capitol and its vicinity, not everyone in America.... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows the answer to such a question. The succession is defined only to a certain extent, and even that is designed to account for some extreme, not to mention extremely unlikely, scenarios. Beyond that ... chaos would reign. Somehow it would all get sorted out. Eventually. Exactly how, is anybody's guess. If would depend on a host of unknowable and imponderable factors, about which only novelists and film makers get to dream up solutions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The succession article acknowledges the lack of clarity on that nightmare scenario. I'm sure that hasn't stop constitutional scholars from speculating about it. The OP should google the subject and see what he can find. There's something to consider, though: The American governmental structure has a number of layers. Assuming it was not an act of war, but just a tragic accident that all 600 or so top officials were somehow on that oversized plane, or cruise ship, or whatever, the individual states and the communications systems would still be intact. All 50 states could immediately have individual sessions to appoint replacement Reps and Senators as per the laws in their states. Now you've got a Congress, and the law of succession kicks in, the Supreme Court is re-filled, etc. Within a day, or maybe even in a few hours, you've got a theoretically functioning government again. Obviously, lots of work remains to be done. But chaos need not reign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually chaos would reign o'er all seeing as I would become president.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the uncertain result of our last federal election, Australia didn't have a working government for around month. Things proceeded very smoothly. Dunno if the same would apply with the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

didn't have a working government for around month - that's not really true. See Caretaker government of Australia. Prior to every election, the government assumes caretaker mode until such time as a result is known. Sometimes it takes a little longer for a result than usual. During these times, much of the ordinary business of government does go into abeyance, but important appointments that cannot wait, and any other major decisions that cannot wait, are made, usually with the Opposition being informed. I mean, if we'd been attacked by terrorist bombs or swamped by a tsunami just after the election, they wouldn't have just thrown their hands into the air and said, "Sorry, nobody can do anything until the election result is known. You'll all just have to fend for yourselves". There's virtually no time when we don't have a government. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's bad? See 2010–2011 Belgian government formation and 2007–2011 Belgian political crisis. No government for 541 days! After a while, being in Caretaker mode becomes awfully tricky - particularly when you're dealing with major crises such as that currently affecting the eurozone. Yet for the most part, Belgium didn't go into meltdown, and the crisis was eventually resolved. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the OP, I did try googling for what the UN's official role is in such situations, but couldn't find anything specific. I think it's safe to say the army would step in, the UN would try to help, and terrorists would try to exploit the situation using any and every means at their disposal. But unless they were the ones who crashed the plane, they would be unprepared to take advantage of it, so there would be a mess for a while, and order would be restored. Beyond that, we don't know, that's why you get to make movies about it - no one can prove you wrong when you speculate about the unknown. I think John Goodman would run the country for a while, then Peter O'Toole would take over. IBE (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In countries whose government is a system rather than a cult of personality, a quick return to stability is much more likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the situation described is somewhat of a long shot (not only would the hypothetical disaster have to affect all of the 19 people specifically named in the United States presidential succession, but would also have to account for the fact that at least one of those people would almost certainly not be in the same place, as per Designated survivor), the answer you're looking for is probably contained within one of the works listed in Fiction regarding United States presidential succession. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find this report (PDF) interesting. It deals with a hypothetical situation exactly as described, with many Cabinet members, Senators and Representatives dead or disabled, and confusion over who has the physical capabilities and/or authority to lead the country. Effectively, the answer is that after a few hours and days of faffing around, during which time the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives declares Martial law, enough people with the good sense and authority required to deal with the situation have gathered, and unite behind a former Secretary of State to guide the nation through the immediate crisis until the next election. Basically, in the absence of anything else to do, people will Just Get On With It (TM). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a very similar scenario, see this section of the Jack Ryan article (warning:spoilers) --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the hypothetical is realistic. The secret service is careful to ensure that those in the line of Presidential succession do not travel together on one single plane - One of them always travels separately (or remains behind) so if something did happen, there would be someone who will legitimately assume the Presidency. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need the secret service for that? Sounds like a pretty easy task, not to get 19 people together into something, indeed, getting 19 people together, no matter who, might be more difficult than how it looks like. Anyway, the answer to the hypothetical questions is: there are still US-governors, which could get their state business running, and form a council to run the US. 88.8.69.150 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Lincoln assassination for why. Even back then decapitation attacks targeted several levels of leadership. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Eric Cantor. The presidency would go to who ever is elected the next speaker. As cantor is probably the most powerfull member of congress, he could get himself elected speaker and their by become president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.55.52 (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the question, the states through various means would appoint new senators who would chose a President Pro Tem who would get to act as President. Note the states can't appoint members to the House of Reps on an emergency basis, though it's been debated. Hot Stop ^UTC 15:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that any succession beyond the VP is untested, and therefore an open question anyways. Even succession by the vice president was a messy and controversial matter the first time it happened (see John Tyler ) and was not resolved legally until the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1967, well over 100 years after it first became an issue. Given the issues that Tyler faced when he became President, any succession involving the Speaker of the House or a Cabinet member or the like is quite likely to result in a constitutional crisis, having something written into law doesn't mean that what is written is sufficient. --Jayron32 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also one possibility that wasn't previously mentioned. The Constitution (between the original document and the amendments) lays out ways to get new people in all the offices in question without the standard elections, except for the president. In such a situation, special elections could be held for the House and governors could appoint new senators, and it would be possible (and given the situation, probably rather likely) that one of the first actions of the new Congress would be to pass a constitutional amendment to provide for a special election for president in such a situation; note that the president doesn't play a part in amending the Constitution. Given the obvious problems of having no executive, I strongly suspect that the state legislatures would speedily approve such an amendment — there's no constitutional minimum time for the adoption of a constitutional amendment, so if everyone agreed that an amendment was needed immediately, it could be adopted just about immediately. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the Senate would first appoint a pro tem who would then become president and no need for any amendment. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're all over-looking the most obvious result. In every case I know of where a sudden power vacuum has appeared in governance without any clear system in place (and that happens more frequently than you know in out-of-the-way nations), the military has stepped in, at least pro-tem. If the major players are all taken out of the picture at the same time, the army is the only organization that has the scale of coordination necessary to ensure a nation continues functioning as a cohesive whole (not to mention that any act which took out all of the top players would almost certainly be interpreted as an act of war requiring military intervention). With luck the army will maintain order while the slow process of rebuilding civilian command occurs; without it, think permanent military junta. --Ludwigs2 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would work that way in the US. The US military seems like a different sort of organization in its domestic role than the militaries of junta states were, even before the juntas. The US Army is just not a politically very powerful entity on the domestic level — they take domestic instructions, rarely give them (other than "please give us money for this cool jet"). My guess would be whatever state government of whatever was the most well-positioned state after said crisis would probably hold a lot of power. Anyway, I think the bottom line is, it hasn't happened before, it isn't clear what would happen. In most cases where that has happened in the US so far (e.g. the first succession to the Presidency by the Vice-President), people just sort of made it up as they went along, and codified it later. I'm sure people would muddle through as they always do. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Henry Ward Beecher colonel in an USCT regiment ?

Hello Learned People !

I just translated from WP de to WP fr the deutsch article about William N. Reed (first & only colored lieutenant colonel during the A.C.W., dead 39 years old after the battle of Olustee) , & was puzzled to read that "Dienst im '1st North Carolina Colored Volunteer Regiment, das nur aus farbigen Freiwilliger bestand. Der Regimentskommandeur war Henry Ward Beecher. Reed wurde Oberstleutnant...".

Has Henry Ward Beecher really been a colonel in an USCT regiment ? I read in WP en Edward A. Wild that Wild helped a half-brother of Mrs Beecher Stowe to join the USCT ...

Thank you beforehand for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was Col. James Chaplin Beecher (1828-1886) who commanded the 39th United States Colored Troops (First North Carolina Colored Volunteers)[1]; he was a half-brother of both Harriet Beecher Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher.

Henry Ward Beecher and his sister Harriet Beecher Stowe were children of Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) and his 1st wife, neé Roxanna Foote (1775-1816). James Chaplin Beecher was the son of Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) and his 2nd wife, neé Harriet Porter (1790-1835). Lyman Beecher married a 3rd time, to Lydia Beals Johnson (1789-1869). - Nunh-huh 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What significance does voter registration have in the US, and is your registration public?

I was reading this article (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/23/trump-dumps-gop/?hpt=hp_t2) and was confused by a couple of things.

It said that Trump changed "his voter registration Thursday from Republican to unaffiliated", and that "the change was made with the New York State Board of Elections".

What is the significance of registering your party affiliation? If you do register it, is it public? Why would anyone register rather than just be private about it. Sancho 22:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't something that can be answered for "the US". It's entirely a state question. In states with a closed primary system, you generally need to indicate a party in order to vote in that party's primary.

In California, at least, it's a matter of public record. Don't know about New York. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A follow-up, then: why does the state have an interest in tracking how parties hold their primaries? It seems like that should be a matter internal to the particular party. If a third national party was created, would it be bound to select its presidential candidate in a manner prescribed by the individual states? Sancho 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you're getting into the fundamental weirdness of the whole idea of the party primary election. On the one hand, in theory, parties are just groups of like-minded people who agree to pick a common person to support. At the Federal level they aren't very formally part of the process at all; the Constitution, for example, doesn't mention them even once.

So it's a bit strange that state governments hold elections to determine what's really an internal matter for parties. The perception, though, is that if you don't do that, then the candidates get chosen by party bosses in a "smoke-filled room" and the public has no input until the general election, by which time there may be no one they really want to vote for.

So the primary system has a fundamental internal tension; it's a weird sort of bastard child of two incompatible models, but not too many people really want to get rid of it.

As far as third national parties, well, there are several, and no, they are not bound to pay attention to the primary system. Neither are the Republicans and Democrats, for that matter — if they want to pick their candidates by some purely internal procedure they are at liberty to do so. Presumably they think the political cost would be too high (assuming they actually want to do it). --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for why the states or federal government would want to track how parties hold their primaries, at least part of it has to do with the history of party primaries being used as a tool to exclude racial minorities from participation in the political process up to the mid-20th century. For more, I'd recommend starting with our article on white primaries (and the Supreme Court decision that banned them, 1944's Smith v. Allwright)--from there, you might want to read up on the solid South. Hope this helps! Meelar (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. I used to work with voter files regularly, and this matter does vary significantly depending on what state you're in. One reason that people might want to register publicly is as a form of social signaling, the same as putting up a yard sign for a candidate; it's an active topic in political science.[reply]

We also should mention that some states have caucuses and not primaries at all. Even your "vote" is public then. I am not sure if you can do cross-party voting in states where you are required to register your party. We know Obama will get his party's nomination so Dem's vote on the Republican primary to try to get a weaker candidate for the opposition. Rmhermen (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, although this time around the GOP is doing a pretty good job at that task all by themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking part in another party's voting procedures in order to advantage your party? Your votes being on the public record? ... This is all head-scratching stuff for me, all so completely foreign to my concept of how these things are done. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary elections in the U.S. lie in a fuzzy territory between government and private organization. After all, political parties are NOT government agencies, and so are not bound by basic rules regarding elections. The U.S. does have a strict secret ballot for any official elections, but the "Primaries" are about political parties choosing their candidates to run in the official elections. How a private organization decides to choose its candidates is entirely its own business. The federal government generally doesn't get involved. Additionally, because of the sort of divided federalism that exists in the U.S., each state's own political parties are semi-independent from the national-level parties, and thus run their own business seperately. That's why every state runs a different primary election, each uses different voting systems, sometimes different parties in the same state will run a different sort of election. Take a look, for example, at Texas. The Texas Republican primary, 2008 was run completely differently from the Texas Democratic primary and caucuses, 2008. These elections are run, not by any government agency, but by the political parties. That's why they work "weird". --Jayron32 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who provides manpower, locations and other resources to hold primaries? The parties, the state or a combination? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It varies WILDLY as to which state. The idea of a formal election primary came about from the progessive movement of the early 20th century in the U.S., and to this day, not all states have "caught on". Iowa, for example, still has the Iowa caucuses, and information is located in that article as to how those are run. In some states, primary party elections occur in conjunction with other official elections, so there may be semi-state sponsorship. In others they are wholly independent from the states. --Jayron32 03:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps Iowa also wants to remain first and could get into a ridiculous rescheduling war with New Hampshire if they changed to a primary. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In California, which is the only state I can really speak on, the state does run the primaries, in that the state government decides when the primaries will be held. Because California's primary was so late in the process compared to other states, most party nominees had been chosen by the time that California's primary came around, so a few years ago, the state legislature moved the California primary up so as to have greater influence on the nomination. But, since the Democrats control the legislature, and because Obama is the foregone conclusion candidate of the Democratic Party, the state legislature moved the primary back this year to June, where it usually was, thus denying the Republicans in California from having much influence in the Republican nomination process. In addition, a state proposition passed a couple of years ago making the California primary an open primary. Thus the top two vote getters will move on the general election, regardless of party. The state also runs non-partisan elections at the same time, so as not to waste money by holding a different election at a different time. Such positions as judges, who are non-partisan, and water district board members, etc., hold elections at that time. Because of the top two moving on to the general election, it's likely that in places like San Francisco, the top two will either be both Democrats, or a Democrat and a Green Party candidate. In places such as Orange County, it's possible that both candidates could be Republicans. The primaries are also used to choose general election candidates for House of Representatives, Senate, and state legislature. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. How can California send delegates to the Republican national conference with the intention of voting for a Democrat? The Democrats aren't running for the Republican nomination... --Tango (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because California doesn't use a party primary system (apparently), instead it uses a two-stage election, whereby the first election (called the Primary) establishes the top two candidates to run in the second electrion (the General election). This isn't disallowed by any principles that I know of. --Jayron32 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new version of the California primary (which hasn't actually been used yet; it's that new) does not apply to the presidential race. It's hard to see how it could.

The new version is not so much a primary as it is two-round voting; parties have no formal role, except that maybe your party affiliation gets listed on the ballot. In principle, we could also do two-round voting for the slate of electors California sends to the electoral college. But if we did that, then it's a plausible scenario that the two candidates who make it to the general election are not the same as the national candidates from the two major parties. In fact, perhaps neither of them would be. In which case California might wind up choosing a slate of electors pledged to a candidate who's not really in the race, and that could easily throw the election into the House of Representatives for the first time since, if I recall correctly, 1824. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consortium of states which are attempting to sidestep the Electoral College by pledging that, if enough states agree (a majority of the Electoral Votes), the state's Electors will pledge to vote for the Presidential candidate who receives the most votes nationwide, even if they don't get the most votes in the state. California is one of those which has pledged to do that. This hasn't come to pass yet, becuase not enough states have agreed. There's probably a Wikipedia article on this, but I have no idea even how to look for it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that compact were to be come reality, it would alter some of the details of the question, but I still don't see how it would make it viable for California to use two-round voting for the presidential election. You could still wind up with a situation where California's general-election ballot has two candidates for president, neither of whom has a chance at the national level. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this kind of brings up what I think is a potential flaw in the National Popular Vote idea. I'm sure it's legal, at least if approved by Congress under the Compact Clause. I'm not sure it's enforceable. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't expect a state legislature to back out of the agreement after the popular election, because it would bring too much criticism, but legally I expect they could.

So let's suppose that California extends two-round voting to the presidential election, and then in some future election, let's say Anna Eshoo and Jerry Brown are the top two finishers in the first round. But nationally, the Democrats pick Bill Richardson and the Republicans pick John Huntsman (both excellent choices btw).

Then in November, Californians are shut out of voting for either Richardson or Huntsman, and go for Eshoo, who has no chance of winning the national popular vote. The total national popular vote favors Huntsman, but if you added Eshoo's votes to Richardson's, he would win.

Wouldn't there be huge pressure on the California legislature to back out of the deal, and appoint a slate pledged to Richardson?

Our article does not seem to discuss the enforceability aspect. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is getting into the realm of unpledged electors, faithless electors and just plain errors, instead of primaries. Rmhermen (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what it has to do with faithless electors. The Constitution gives state legislatures a direct grant of authority to choose electors. There's no limitation on how they do it, but also no indication that any commitment they make on how they do it can be binding. --Trovatore (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a mix of "red" and "blue" states in that consortium, and if they stop and think about it, one presidential election could be enough to cure them of this notion. Let's suppose Obama gets more popular votes than Romney, but Romney wins some particular red state in the list, and that state's electoral votes swing the election to Romney instead of Obama. However, due to the consortium, that red state's electors would be compelled to vote for Obama even though their citizenry wanted Romney. That would go over like a lead balloon. People forget that it is the states which elect the president, not the individual citizens. It was set up that way in the constitution for the same reason the bicameral congress was set up: to provide a check against the large, populous states from totally overwhelming the smaller ones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you realised this, but the compact only comes into effect when it is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes - if that happened, then the result of the vote in any individual state would be completely irrelevant, and the outcome would be decided solely based on the national popular vote. Presumably, that would alter the way the electoral system is perceived, and the situation you describe would not be particularly controversial. I'm intrigued by your justification for the electoral college - perhaps it was originally intended to be a check against larger states (I wouldn't know), but I can't imagine how it could possibly achieve that - haven't recent presidential elections been dominated by certain large swing states like Florida and Ohio? Why would this be desirable anyway - surely the views of the 40 million residents of California should carry more weight than the 600 thousand residents of Wyoming? And if there is going to be an electoral bias against those living in more populous states, shouldn't there also be a bias against, say, those from larger ethnic, religious or socioeconomic groups, or those from more populous regions within a state? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"surely the views..." - no, not surely at all. That is not how the U.S. Constitution sets up the election of President or Senators. Rmhermen (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand - from my reading of Article One of the United States Constitution and Article Two of the United States Constitution, the US constitution does set up the election of the president (and the house of representatives, but not the senate) in such a way that larger states have more influence. My 'surely' wasn't supposed to apply to the senate, since (as far as I know) its members are supposed to be representative of their own states - the entire body is not expected to be representative of the country as a whole, as the president is. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These answers have been helpful and interesting! Back to my original question, Trump would have been able to run as an independent regardless of his registration in the state of new york, correct? Sancho 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on New York election law, but I think you're almost certainly correct. It would be extremely weird for a state to stipulate that, if you're registered with a party, then you can run for office only as a candidate of that party. Having said that, I don't know any specific reason that such a law would be unconstitutional. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot we're talking about the presidential race. I'm sure it would be unconstitutional for New York to restrict Trump from running in other states. I don't know under what clause, exactly, but it's just part of that corpus of things that it's understood states can't do. At most they could keep him off the ballot in New York. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also 99% sure that Trump could run as an independent, regardless of his party registration, and I'm pretty sure that preventing him from doing so would infringe on his First Amendment rights. That kind of law, restricting participation on electoral participation, is right at the heart of the First and it would be tough to mess around with. Meelar (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He could, but if he was a party member running an unendorsed campaign against his party's "official" candidate, wouldn't he risk being expelled from the party? When Joe Lieberman didn't get the Democratic party nomination for the 2006 Connecticut seat, he did indeed run as an independent. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, there's no tradition of people being "expelled" from parties. Most people who consider themselves to belong to a particular party have no formal affiliation with the party beyond their voter registration, in states where you state a party on your registration, and none at all in states where you don't. So there's nothing to be expelled from.

Now, if you're an elected legislator, the party in charge of the house can certainly decline to recognize you as a member of the party for the purpose of committee assignments and so on. Is that what you meant by "expelled"? --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm wrong in that case, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. Here in Australia, there is such a thing as formal party membership, complete with membership applications and fees. You need to have at least 500 members to register a party. Lieberman reached a deal allowing him to keep his chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. But if you want a position of any sort in the party apparatus, I think you'd be mighty unlikely, as a rebel, to get it - unless you have bargaining power, as Senator Lieberman happened to have, given the hung senate at the time. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Traficant, the Democrat later convicted for corruption, was expelled from the House Democratic Caucus for voting for the Republican candidate for speaker of the House. That's the only time I've ever heard of that happening. Generally in America, you can do just about whatever you want as long as you continue to support your party's control of the chamber you're in. There's no strategic reason for the Democrats to hassle Lieberman. It's better to have 53 members of your caucus than 52, even if you'd prefer to have had someone else from your party win the seat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]