2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

The new Congress, of course.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electiontie.htm

[Hamilcar]

The new Congress, of course.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electiontie.htm

Thank you!

[Valmy]

Ok so what happened in 1825? Was it the 18th or 19th Congress that picked Adams?

Edit: It was definitely the outgoing 18th Congress that decided that election. Has that changed since then? That was certainly well after the 12th amendment.

[garbon]

A pretty good (short) article from CNN of all places...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/opinions/nasty-election-campaign-opinion-mcternan/index.html

I liked this:

The result does not mean it will be over. Not because either side will be sore losers and cry foul -- though Trump does look more of a crybaby than a statesman, and is highly unlikely to be able to give a concession speech as gracious as John McCain's.

No, the reason that this divisive debate won't go away after the election is there is a real underlying division -- one not caused by the campaign but reflected in it.

America is changing, becoming more diverse, more urban, better educated. The consequent social change -- including equal marriage and the long march of women through the institutions -- is irreversible.

This fact has proved so disturbing to some parts of America -- largely in Republican states -- that they will next week go to the polling station and vote for Trump.

I think it misses another important piece to the puzzle however. There is a serious and real concern about the fundamentals of our system, and who it actually represents, and that is sadly being lost by the "basket of deplorables" movement.

I'm not sure our political system needs a systemic overhaul. I mean certainly it could do with a patch to fix what happens when politicians are uninterested in actually helping the country (or even doing their jobs).

[Valmy]

I would like to see campaign finance reform, conflict of interest reform, and term limits. But, you know, the people who would be hurt by those things would have to vote on it. I don't think those are systemic overhauls though.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't think the constitution specifically requires it be the "outgoing" or "incoming" Congress so much as there is a timing issue consequent to the 20th Amendment, (eradication of the long "lame duck" term--outgoing Presidents used to serve until the following March), the 20th Amendment set the start date for the new terms of Senators and Congress to noon on January 3rd, and the date Congress counts the votes of the state electors is January 6th. So the outgoing Congress doesn't have the opportunity (due to timing) to participate in a contingent election.

Back in 1824/25, the outgoing Congress was still in office when the elector's votes were counted, and thus was eligible to participate in a contingent election. Before the 20th Amendment the start date for a new congress wasn't necessarily fixed, the only real timing baked into the original constitution on this matter was that Congress had to meet every year in December. Given laws passed early on that codified election day to a single day in November, and most states deciding to hold congressional elections on that same November day, and prior Congresscritters serving until April or so, a person elected in November of one year may not actually sit in Congress and take up any business for over a year (the next December session--which in odd-numbered years tended to be short) after their election date.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how this particular election has anything to do with campaign finance reform (unless you're a deplorable who thinks Hillary's greater contributions show how rigged the system is).

The problem this election has highlighted is that there is a significant portion of the electorate which is hostile to mainstream policies, impervious to facts or persuasion, and unwilling to be co-opted by mainstream politicians.

[LaCroix]

I think trump got lucky because (1) the repub establishment pick ended up being a lame duck; (2) the opposition to trump was too fragmented for too long, like white russians; and (3) he appealed to a number of groups for a number  of different reasons. re: third point, I don't think the anti-establishment "burn DC to the ground!" group is large enough to have provided him with all of his support in the early era. a lot of people liked him because they thought he was a good businessman, was an exciting and charismatic figure, was a celebrity so that's good enough, etc.

once he got the nomination, a lot of traditional republicans  fell in line because that's just kinda what happens

[Valmy]

I don't see how this particular election has anything to do with campaign finance reform (unless you're a deplorable who thinks Hillary's greater contributions show how rigged the system is).

True. Those might just be things I want to see in general and not necessarily related to the election

[The Minsky Moment]

And there's lot of potential ways for the courts to get involved.

Courts yes, but Supreme Court?  It would be unusual for them to involve themselves in selection of state Electors.  That was unprecedented prior to 2000, and would still be unprecedented now, because of the odd way the Supreme Court decided that case.

[Valmy]

I don't think the constitution specifically requires it be the "outgoing" or "incoming" Congress so much as there is a timing issue consequent to the 20th Amendment, (eradication of the long "lame duck" term--outgoing Presidents used to serve until the following March), the 20th Amendment set the start date for the new terms of Senators and Congress to noon on January 3rd, and the date Congress counts the votes of the state electors is January 6th. So the outgoing Congress doesn't have the opportunity (due to timing) to participate in a contingent election.

Back in 1824/25, the outgoing Congress was still in office when the elector's votes were counted, and thus was eligible to participate in a contingent election. Before the 20th Amendment the start date for a new congress wasn't necessarily fixed, the only real timing baked into the original constitution on this matter was that Congress had to meet every year in December. Given laws passed early on that codified election day to a single day in November, and most states deciding to hold congressional elections on that same November day, and prior Congresscritters serving until April or so, a person elected in November of one year may not actually sit in Congress and take up any business for over a year (the next December session--which in odd-numbered years tended to be short) after their election date.

Thanks. It all makes sense now.

[Jacob]

 

Seems like Rep. Chaffetz - famed for his zeal in investigating Clinton's email server - has been reported to the FBI for... you guessed it... using a potentially illegal private email server.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/02/gop-rep-jason-chaffetz-reported-fbi-potentially-illegal-private-email-server.html

EDIT: to more accurately reflect the content of the link, as per Admiral Yi

[Valmy]

This email thing is so idiotic. I just do not understand why it is this big thing. Hire better staff you morons.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems like Rep. Chaffetz - famed for his zeal in investigating Clinton's email server - is under investigation by the FBI for... you guessed it... using a potentially illegal private email server.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/02/gop-rep-jason-chaffetz-reported-fbi-potentially-illegal-private-email-server.html

You might want to re-read your own article.  It says he has "been reported to the FBI" by some PAC thingy.

[garbon]

This email thing is so idiotic. I just do not understand why it is this big thing. Hire better staff you morons.

Big thing because it was a Hil Clinton thing.