RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS
On assuming office the president takes an oath, as prescribed by the Constitution, faithfully to discharge the duties of office and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The president is charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the U.S. In discharging this responsibility the president is assisted by the vast network of agencies constituting the executive branch of the government and administered by the members of the CABINET, (q.v.) and the heads of the independent federal agencies. Also in the discharge of this responsibility, the president may, at the request of a state government, employ the National Guard or federal troops to quell disorder, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion. Or, the president may declare martial law in times of overwhelming public danger, when the courts are not open or cannot function freely. In such situations, the president may, with congressional authorization, suspend the right of the writ of HABEAS CORPUS (q.v.; MARTIAL LAW,). The president may grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., "except in cases of impeachment" Pursuant to the intention of the framers of the Constitution of creating a government of checks and balances in which each of three coordinate branches of the national government could restrain either of the other two, the president may veto legislation enacted by Congress. The Congress may then override such a veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. The president also advises Congress "from time to time," in formal addresses communicated in writing or in person, on "the state of the Union"; recommends the enactment of legislation, including, since 1921, an annual executive budget; may convene either or both houses of Congress in special session; and, under certain circumstances described in the Constitution, may adjourn Congress
Legislative and Judicial Functions.
The president exercises important legislative functions by issuing executive orders that have the force of law and by authorizing administrative agencies to "promulgate rules in conformity with law." Important judicial functions are also discharged by the executive department of the government through such agencies as the IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE (q.v.), which holds hearings in connection with the deportation of aliens illegally in the U.S., and the National Labor Relations Board, which adjudicates disputes between management and labor. Such hearings and adjudications have been held by the courts not to be subject to judicial review as to fact, and the agencies holding and making them are quasi-judicial bodies.
Economic Functions.
The president exerts a decisive influence on the economic life of the U.S. through the exercise of discretionary powers vested in the chief executive by congressional enactments. In addition, as head of the executive department, the president is, in effect, the largest single employer in the U.S. The number of federal civil employees fluctuates with the contraction and expansion of the executive departments and agencies. During World War II it was approximately 3,750,000; after the war it declined by more than 1,500,000
Foreign Policy.
The president directs U.S. foreign policy in its political, diplomatic, financial, and commercial aspects. By provision of the Constitution the president may negotiate treaties only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate"; but by precedent and custom the president may negotiate executive agreements with foreign countries that have the force and effect of law and that do not require congressional approval. The president receives the ambassadors and "other public ministers" of foreign nations and has the power of recognition.
Military Functions.
As commander in chief of the armed forces the president has the power to formulate and direct the military strategy of the nation in war and is the nominal head of the military government of foreign territory occupied and administered by the U.S., as in Germany after World War II. In the view of many constitutional analysts and political scientists, the president, as director of foreign policy and as commander in chief, has the power to create situations that can result in war, reducing to a formality the constitutional provision vesting Congress with exclusive power to declare war. Since World War II, conflicts in Korea, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere have been conducted by the U.S. without congressional declaration. The policy of President James K. Polk, which resulted in war with Mexico in 1846, is frequently cited as an example of the presidential power to bring about a state of armed hostilities with other nations.
Appointive Powers.
Subject to confirmation by a majority of the Senate, the president appoints the members of the cabinet and the heads of the independent federal agencies; a large part of the administrative personnel of the federal executive departments and agencies; federal judges, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; many federal employees; and the diplomatic representatives of the U.S. The president also commissions, subject to congressional confirmation, all officers of the armed forces. Federal judges are beyond the reach of the president's power of removal and may be removed from office only by impeachment. In a 1926 decision of the Supreme Court, the president was declared to have the power to remove those officers who are under presidential authority. A later decision, in 1935, held that officers in quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative posts, as those in the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (q.v.), can be removed only for causes established by law. In connection with official duties, the president disburses large sums of money; during World War II Congress placed hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to be expended solely at his discretion within the general limits of presidential powers.
ELECTION AND SUCCESSION
Originally, the Constitution provided for the election of the president and vice-president by a body of electors, to be chosen in such manner as the state legislatures might direct, and subsequently known as the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, (q.v.). The electors were to vote for two persons, the one receiving the higher vote becoming president and the other, vice-president. A tie vote in the election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr led to the enactment in 1804 of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the separate election by the electors of the president and vice-president. The method of choosing the electors varied and gradually evolved into its present form, wherein the designation of the president and vice-president by the electoral college is generally only a nominal function reflecting the outcome of elections in the states. George Washington was elected unanimously. All other presidents, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, were elected by majorities in the electoral college. In accordance with the original constitutional provision, the president and vice-president were inaugurated on March 4 of the year following their election; in 1933, when the 20th Amendment went into effect, the inauguration date was changed to January 20 of the year following their election (LAME-DUCK AMENDMENT,). Pursuant to a congressional enactment of 1845, presidential elections are held in each quadrennial year on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
Pros and Cons of the Electoral College 1. Pro: It allows small states and small town America to have a say in the the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. I am originally from a small town and I think that this is one of the major benefits of the electoral college.
2. Con: Many states are seemingly completely left out of the process. A solid blue state like California never gets to see either candidate. Neither does a solid red state like Texas. These are the 2 biggest states in the union and they don’t get any attention from the candidates.
3. Pro: It gives the winning candidate the majority of the vote. In the 1992 election Bill Clinton only received around 42% of the vote. However, due to the influence of Ross Perot he still won a convincing majority in the electoral college. There is definitely some benefit to winning a majority. You don’t want the perception of 2/3 of the country not wanting you as soon as you take office.
4. Con: Some votes are “worth” more than others. Certainly a vote in Ohio is not the same as a vote in New York.
5. Pro: It avoids the possibility of a recount of the entire nation. After the fiasco in Florida in 2000, can anybody imagine the nightmare of a recount for the whole country. The chances of fraud would also go up tremendously.
6. Con: It is a remnant of slavery. The southern states had smaller populations when the country was formed due to blacks only counting for 3/5 for population reasons. The compromise for small states to be represented, (and so that they would join) was the senate. The senate has 2 representatives for each state, putting the small states on a level playing field with the large states. These 2 votes in the electoral college also give small states an advantage over large states. A vote in a small state is worth more relative to a vote in a large state because of this.
7. Pro: I think that it does a better job representing the country as a whole. Some of the larger states leaning in one direction could completely over power a large portion of the country. The electoral college provides some balance to this.
8. Con: It makes having a third party nearly impossible. If there was a legitimate third party, the electoral college simply does not work as it is currently structured. As it is now, a candidate must win a majority in the electoral college to win. If there is no majority, the House of Representatives votes to decide the president. If we have 3 parties splitting the electoral votes, the house would decide each time. I don’t think the American public would stand for this.
9. Idea: Go to a straight popular vote. This basically solves each con of the electoral college. Unfortunately, it basically negates all of the pros for the electoral college in that it would ignore small town America and create a nightmare in the possibility of a nationwide recount. This brings me to what I think is a better solution.
10. Idea: Separate the votes in the electoral college by district as Nebraska and Maine do and as the Democratic party did for most of its primaries. This solves many of the problems of the electoral college. Instead of having battleground states, we would then have battleground districts. This would make candidates campaign in many more states than they currently do. A Democrat could win some districts in Texas and a Republican could gain some votes in California. More people would be given the opportunity have their voices heard. This would be much closer to a popular vote yet we would be spared the possibility of a nationwide recount.
This would also make a third party more viable. Though they currently are not able to compete on a statewide level, I believe third parties could compete in some districts. After winning some electoral votes, they would gain recognition and increase support among like minded individuals. As it stands now, most people feel it is a wasted vote making it nearly impossible for third parties make a difference. While we would have to work around the problem of not having a majority, there are certainly benefits to having another option. If nothing else it would help police the two crooked parties we have now. If there were the possibility of another party winning, they would have to behave themselves more than they currently do. I think this is overall a much better solution than the system we currently have in place. Also, this would not be that difficult to put into place. The states already have the option to do this. As I said earlier, Nebraska and Maine do it this way now. 2 down, 48 to go.
Support for the Electoral College
U.S. Electoral College - Supporters of the College Supporters of the College claim that the system protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes by campaigning only in a few densely populated areas of the country. A candidate could theoretically focus resources, time, and political capital solely on winning votes in a handful of large cities in order to win the election. It is felt that this pressure would lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored. Thus, the intent of the College is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. Opponents claim the focus on "swing states" in the current system is equally problematic.
Many conservatives defend the Electoral College not out of necessarily practical arguments, but out of the argument that the Electoral College is a symbol of federalism. These defenders, such as United States Senator Mitch McConnell, point out that American states are semi-sovereign, not mere administrative units. They claim that the electoral college reinforces that residual sovereignty. Conceding that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote," federalist defenders of the College remind that the United States Senate violates "one man, one vote" even more seriously. Finally, these defenders of the College assert that the United States is a "republic, not a democracy."
In the event of an extremely close election, such as the 2000 presidential election, having the Electoral College makes doing a recount much easier, since a recount will only be necessary in the few states in which the popular vote is close, rather than the entire nation. This lowering of risk comes at a cost: it is somewhat more likely that a recount will be needed under the Electoral College than under a direct election. (Note that a recount is only needed in an electoral college system if the electoral vote is close enough that the election turns on a small number of states and if that small number of states all have a popular vote close enough to require a recount.)
Electoral College supporters also believe that the system serves to dampen the consequences of potential election fraud. Fraudulent votes manufactured in one state can only affect the distribution of that state's limited number of electoral votes, any votes beyond a majority in that state have no further effect nationwide. In a pure direct election any number of fraudulent votes would have a direct impact on the results nationwide. Moreover, fraud is less likely to occur in close states because close states are more likely to have healthy multiparty systems with the parties acting as watchdogs on each other.
Opponents claim that in an Electoral College model, voting fraud is a larger problem. In a popular vote system, it is claimed, fraudulent votes could become essentially neutralized by the large amount of legal votes across the nation, while with the College, with state-sized contests, fraudulent votes could garner a larger effect.
The Electoral College mitigates against the influence of factors that can affect voter turnout. A major snow storm in a region of the country could suppress voter turnout there. States with gubernatorial or senate races of a high interest level will likely have a higher than normal turnout. Under a popular vote system, such turnout variations would influence the relative strength of a state's vote, while with the electoral college, such variations do not affect the states' relative influence on the national outcome.
While it is common to think of the electoral votes as numbers, the college is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state). If a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President, these electors can choose a suitable replacement who will most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election. The time period of such a death or unsuitability that is covered extends from before election day (many states can not change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote, the third Wednesday of December.
PRIMARIES EXPLAINED
#1 Primaries vs. Caucuses
#2 Who can vote?
#3 Who votes when?
#4 Votes that aren’t votes
#5 Super Delegates
On assuming office the president takes an oath, as prescribed by the Constitution, faithfully to discharge the duties of office and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The president is charged by the Constitution with executing the laws of the U.S. In discharging this responsibility the president is assisted by the vast network of agencies constituting the executive branch of the government and administered by the members of the CABINET, (q.v.) and the heads of the independent federal agencies. Also in the discharge of this responsibility, the president may, at the request of a state government, employ the National Guard or federal troops to quell disorder, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion. Or, the president may declare martial law in times of overwhelming public danger, when the courts are not open or cannot function freely. In such situations, the president may, with congressional authorization, suspend the right of the writ of HABEAS CORPUS (q.v.; MARTIAL LAW,). The president may grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., "except in cases of impeachment" Pursuant to the intention of the framers of the Constitution of creating a government of checks and balances in which each of three coordinate branches of the national government could restrain either of the other two, the president may veto legislation enacted by Congress. The Congress may then override such a veto by a two-thirds vote of each house. The president also advises Congress "from time to time," in formal addresses communicated in writing or in person, on "the state of the Union"; recommends the enactment of legislation, including, since 1921, an annual executive budget; may convene either or both houses of Congress in special session; and, under certain circumstances described in the Constitution, may adjourn Congress
Legislative and Judicial Functions.
The president exercises important legislative functions by issuing executive orders that have the force of law and by authorizing administrative agencies to "promulgate rules in conformity with law." Important judicial functions are also discharged by the executive department of the government through such agencies as the IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE (q.v.), which holds hearings in connection with the deportation of aliens illegally in the U.S., and the National Labor Relations Board, which adjudicates disputes between management and labor. Such hearings and adjudications have been held by the courts not to be subject to judicial review as to fact, and the agencies holding and making them are quasi-judicial bodies.
Economic Functions.
The president exerts a decisive influence on the economic life of the U.S. through the exercise of discretionary powers vested in the chief executive by congressional enactments. In addition, as head of the executive department, the president is, in effect, the largest single employer in the U.S. The number of federal civil employees fluctuates with the contraction and expansion of the executive departments and agencies. During World War II it was approximately 3,750,000; after the war it declined by more than 1,500,000
Foreign Policy.
The president directs U.S. foreign policy in its political, diplomatic, financial, and commercial aspects. By provision of the Constitution the president may negotiate treaties only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate"; but by precedent and custom the president may negotiate executive agreements with foreign countries that have the force and effect of law and that do not require congressional approval. The president receives the ambassadors and "other public ministers" of foreign nations and has the power of recognition.
Military Functions.
As commander in chief of the armed forces the president has the power to formulate and direct the military strategy of the nation in war and is the nominal head of the military government of foreign territory occupied and administered by the U.S., as in Germany after World War II. In the view of many constitutional analysts and political scientists, the president, as director of foreign policy and as commander in chief, has the power to create situations that can result in war, reducing to a formality the constitutional provision vesting Congress with exclusive power to declare war. Since World War II, conflicts in Korea, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere have been conducted by the U.S. without congressional declaration. The policy of President James K. Polk, which resulted in war with Mexico in 1846, is frequently cited as an example of the presidential power to bring about a state of armed hostilities with other nations.
Appointive Powers.
Subject to confirmation by a majority of the Senate, the president appoints the members of the cabinet and the heads of the independent federal agencies; a large part of the administrative personnel of the federal executive departments and agencies; federal judges, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; many federal employees; and the diplomatic representatives of the U.S. The president also commissions, subject to congressional confirmation, all officers of the armed forces. Federal judges are beyond the reach of the president's power of removal and may be removed from office only by impeachment. In a 1926 decision of the Supreme Court, the president was declared to have the power to remove those officers who are under presidential authority. A later decision, in 1935, held that officers in quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative posts, as those in the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (q.v.), can be removed only for causes established by law. In connection with official duties, the president disburses large sums of money; during World War II Congress placed hundreds of millions of dollars at the disposal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to be expended solely at his discretion within the general limits of presidential powers.
ELECTION AND SUCCESSION
Originally, the Constitution provided for the election of the president and vice-president by a body of electors, to be chosen in such manner as the state legislatures might direct, and subsequently known as the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, (q.v.). The electors were to vote for two persons, the one receiving the higher vote becoming president and the other, vice-president. A tie vote in the election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr led to the enactment in 1804 of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the separate election by the electors of the president and vice-president. The method of choosing the electors varied and gradually evolved into its present form, wherein the designation of the president and vice-president by the electoral college is generally only a nominal function reflecting the outcome of elections in the states. George Washington was elected unanimously. All other presidents, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, were elected by majorities in the electoral college. In accordance with the original constitutional provision, the president and vice-president were inaugurated on March 4 of the year following their election; in 1933, when the 20th Amendment went into effect, the inauguration date was changed to January 20 of the year following their election (LAME-DUCK AMENDMENT,). Pursuant to a congressional enactment of 1845, presidential elections are held in each quadrennial year on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
Pros and Cons of the Electoral College 1. Pro: It allows small states and small town America to have a say in the the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. I am originally from a small town and I think that this is one of the major benefits of the electoral college.
2. Con: Many states are seemingly completely left out of the process. A solid blue state like California never gets to see either candidate. Neither does a solid red state like Texas. These are the 2 biggest states in the union and they don’t get any attention from the candidates.
3. Pro: It gives the winning candidate the majority of the vote. In the 1992 election Bill Clinton only received around 42% of the vote. However, due to the influence of Ross Perot he still won a convincing majority in the electoral college. There is definitely some benefit to winning a majority. You don’t want the perception of 2/3 of the country not wanting you as soon as you take office.
4. Con: Some votes are “worth” more than others. Certainly a vote in Ohio is not the same as a vote in New York.
5. Pro: It avoids the possibility of a recount of the entire nation. After the fiasco in Florida in 2000, can anybody imagine the nightmare of a recount for the whole country. The chances of fraud would also go up tremendously.
6. Con: It is a remnant of slavery. The southern states had smaller populations when the country was formed due to blacks only counting for 3/5 for population reasons. The compromise for small states to be represented, (and so that they would join) was the senate. The senate has 2 representatives for each state, putting the small states on a level playing field with the large states. These 2 votes in the electoral college also give small states an advantage over large states. A vote in a small state is worth more relative to a vote in a large state because of this.
7. Pro: I think that it does a better job representing the country as a whole. Some of the larger states leaning in one direction could completely over power a large portion of the country. The electoral college provides some balance to this.
8. Con: It makes having a third party nearly impossible. If there was a legitimate third party, the electoral college simply does not work as it is currently structured. As it is now, a candidate must win a majority in the electoral college to win. If there is no majority, the House of Representatives votes to decide the president. If we have 3 parties splitting the electoral votes, the house would decide each time. I don’t think the American public would stand for this.
9. Idea: Go to a straight popular vote. This basically solves each con of the electoral college. Unfortunately, it basically negates all of the pros for the electoral college in that it would ignore small town America and create a nightmare in the possibility of a nationwide recount. This brings me to what I think is a better solution.
10. Idea: Separate the votes in the electoral college by district as Nebraska and Maine do and as the Democratic party did for most of its primaries. This solves many of the problems of the electoral college. Instead of having battleground states, we would then have battleground districts. This would make candidates campaign in many more states than they currently do. A Democrat could win some districts in Texas and a Republican could gain some votes in California. More people would be given the opportunity have their voices heard. This would be much closer to a popular vote yet we would be spared the possibility of a nationwide recount.
This would also make a third party more viable. Though they currently are not able to compete on a statewide level, I believe third parties could compete in some districts. After winning some electoral votes, they would gain recognition and increase support among like minded individuals. As it stands now, most people feel it is a wasted vote making it nearly impossible for third parties make a difference. While we would have to work around the problem of not having a majority, there are certainly benefits to having another option. If nothing else it would help police the two crooked parties we have now. If there were the possibility of another party winning, they would have to behave themselves more than they currently do. I think this is overall a much better solution than the system we currently have in place. Also, this would not be that difficult to put into place. The states already have the option to do this. As I said earlier, Nebraska and Maine do it this way now. 2 down, 48 to go.
Support for the Electoral College
U.S. Electoral College - Supporters of the College Supporters of the College claim that the system protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes by campaigning only in a few densely populated areas of the country. A candidate could theoretically focus resources, time, and political capital solely on winning votes in a handful of large cities in order to win the election. It is felt that this pressure would lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored. Thus, the intent of the College is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation. Opponents claim the focus on "swing states" in the current system is equally problematic.
Many conservatives defend the Electoral College not out of necessarily practical arguments, but out of the argument that the Electoral College is a symbol of federalism. These defenders, such as United States Senator Mitch McConnell, point out that American states are semi-sovereign, not mere administrative units. They claim that the electoral college reinforces that residual sovereignty. Conceding that the Electoral College violates the principle of "one man, one vote," federalist defenders of the College remind that the United States Senate violates "one man, one vote" even more seriously. Finally, these defenders of the College assert that the United States is a "republic, not a democracy."
In the event of an extremely close election, such as the 2000 presidential election, having the Electoral College makes doing a recount much easier, since a recount will only be necessary in the few states in which the popular vote is close, rather than the entire nation. This lowering of risk comes at a cost: it is somewhat more likely that a recount will be needed under the Electoral College than under a direct election. (Note that a recount is only needed in an electoral college system if the electoral vote is close enough that the election turns on a small number of states and if that small number of states all have a popular vote close enough to require a recount.)
Electoral College supporters also believe that the system serves to dampen the consequences of potential election fraud. Fraudulent votes manufactured in one state can only affect the distribution of that state's limited number of electoral votes, any votes beyond a majority in that state have no further effect nationwide. In a pure direct election any number of fraudulent votes would have a direct impact on the results nationwide. Moreover, fraud is less likely to occur in close states because close states are more likely to have healthy multiparty systems with the parties acting as watchdogs on each other.
Opponents claim that in an Electoral College model, voting fraud is a larger problem. In a popular vote system, it is claimed, fraudulent votes could become essentially neutralized by the large amount of legal votes across the nation, while with the College, with state-sized contests, fraudulent votes could garner a larger effect.
The Electoral College mitigates against the influence of factors that can affect voter turnout. A major snow storm in a region of the country could suppress voter turnout there. States with gubernatorial or senate races of a high interest level will likely have a higher than normal turnout. Under a popular vote system, such turnout variations would influence the relative strength of a state's vote, while with the electoral college, such variations do not affect the states' relative influence on the national outcome.
While it is common to think of the electoral votes as numbers, the college is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state). If a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President, these electors can choose a suitable replacement who will most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election. The time period of such a death or unsuitability that is covered extends from before election day (many states can not change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote, the third Wednesday of December.
PRIMARIES EXPLAINED
#1 Primaries vs. Caucuses
- Explain briefly how Primary elections work
- Explain briefly how Caucuses work
#2 Who can vote?
- Who can’t vote?
- What’s a ‘closed primary?’
- What’s a semi-closed primary?
- What’s an open primary?
- What about Americans living abroad?
#3 Who votes when?
- Which state votes first? But why can Iowa go before that?
- What’s ‘Super Tuesday?’
#4 Votes that aren’t votes
- What’s a delegate?
- How many delegates does each state get?
- Where do the delegates place their vote for a candidate?
#5 Super Delegates
- What’s a super-delegate?
- Why have super delegates been added to the conventions?
- Why are National Conventions usually unnecessary?
- When can National Conventions make a difference?