Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, like any benevolent dictator, must sometimes just have himself a little purge to keep things interesting.

The purge is of the blogroll. As your Maximum Leader has mentioned time and time again, the blogroll on this site is like a little favourites list that he can look up anywhere he happens to be. That said, your Maximum Leader has decided to purge websites that he has not read with any frequency in the past two or so months. Not that the majority of those blogs will care if they are dropped, it will make your Maximum Leader feel good to tid up some.

And in case this post left you cold…

On tap for later, more Electoral College madness! With comments from your Maximum Leader, the good JohnL of TexasBestGrok, and the Divine Minion Molly. But that will come when your Maximum Leader is willing to devote a little more time to blogging and a little less time to Medieval Total War.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader noted today that esteemed Canadian actor James T. Kir… No! William Shatner, has signed up to go on a Virgin Galactic space flight. Shatner and Dave Navarro (sans Carmen Electra we suppose) are both interested in seats on the commercial spacecraft.

If your Maximum Leader weren’t so preoccupied with world domination, Jennifer Love Hewitt, pie-encrusted Ann Coulter, the World Series and whisky he might want to put down the money and go himself.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was very pleased to read the Minister of Agriculture’s most recent post about the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Your Maximum Leader remembers seeing the Senator speak eloquently and insightfully on the floor of the Senate. Your Maximum Leader always sought out the Sunday morning talk shows that Moynihan was on. And your Maximum Leader always tried to read his columns and editorials in various newspapers and journals. Senator Moynihan was a principled and intelligent man who served our nation very well. Although Moynihan and your Maximum Leader wouldn’t share many political views, we shared a love of knowledge and intelligent discourse.

If it were possible to do so, your Maximum Leader would have voted for Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Requiscat in pace, Senator. There are none like you in that august body now. And, alas, it may be a long time before another like you is elected…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is quite excited about the upcoming World Series. But before we go there…

What a great NLCS game 7! The Astros took an early lead, but the Cards battled back to defeat the crafty Houstonians and grab the pennant. Your Maximum Leader extends his deep sympathy to the fans of Houston. The only words of relief to be found are, “There is always next year.”

In game 7 the Cards just overpowered the Astros and outplayed them defensively. What was interesting about the game, in the watching, was how when the Astros were in the field it seemed like an American League game. But when the Cards were in the feild, it seemed more like a National League game. The Cards were quick defensively and played to keep runs from happening. When at bat, the Cards played a good game of stealing and putting the ball in play to advance runners. It was great to watch.

Now that we know the Cards and the Sox are in the series what thoughts does your Maximum Leader have about the clash?

Well, first off it is good to see the best team in the National League battle the (almost) best team in the American League. Yes, your Maximum Leader knows that Boston didn’t have the best record overall. But Boston lead the American League in offensive production and pitching stats. Your Maximum Leader thinks that in terms of pure offense, the teams are equally matched. In terms of starting pitching, the teams are fairly evenly matched. The Sox pitchers should have a clear advantage in starters, but the Cards starters have stepped up and are playing just as well as Boston’s. Boston has a clea advantage in closers. The Card’s closers are shaky. The Cards play defensively better than the Sox do.

So what does all that mean? It means that we should be in for some really good baseball. If the Sox start Tim Wakefield; then the Cards have a good chance of taking one game at Fenway. That is critical for the Cards. They must take one of the first two games at Fenway to win the series. They can do this if they play aggressive National League style ball and concentrate on advancing and scoring runners. (Your Maximum Leader expects lots of steals and sacrifice plays.)

For Boston, your Maximum Leader believes they must come out swinging and jump to an early lead and get their closers into the game. Boston cannot win with good karma and high hopes alone.

Now, predictions… If the Cards take one of the first two games, your Maximum Leader feels that St. Louis will triumph in the series. If the Sox take the first two at Fenway, the Sox will triumph.

Now, hopes… Your Maximum Leader, normally a faithful National League man, is hoping that Boston wins. He would like to see the monkey flung from the back of this historic franchise. He hopes this is the year.

Carry on.

The Washington Post has two articles on potential cabinet heads in Kerry I or Bush II adminstrations.

I hope that recent discussions about Vanilla Ice Backup Dancers does not lead the Maximum Leader to shuffle his cabinet and change me to the “Minister of Being First Against the Wall.”

In looking for constitutional arguments on the faithless elector issue, I came across this rather erudite and amusing speech, delivered in 1979. I submit it for the Maximum Leader’s amusement.

The Maximum Leader has continued the Molly Mailbag on the Electoral College.

After reading his learned post, I have these observations:

1) I hope J.L. did not think I was casting aspersions on just the Republican redistricting plans. The Maximum Leader is correct; both parties gerrymander. I specifically mentioned the TexRepubs because they are currently in the driver’s seat.

2) Uh, J.L., perhaps one should not anger the fair Molly. She lives near you AND totes firearms. Never annoy people who meet one of those characteristics, let alone two.

3) After reading the ML’s Constitution excerpt, I am unclear about exactly WHY the Maximum Leader believes that faithless elector laws are illegal; the excerpt just gives the power to APPOINT to the states. Perhaps he is engaging in a little (gasp) loose (gasp) constructivism (gasp)? My view is that faithless elector laws probably violate the intent of the founders; after all, the entire electoral college system is geared to provide filters between the people and the presidency:

People -> State legislature (first filter)

State egislature -> Electors (second filter)

Electors -> President (third filter)

And sometimes:

House of representatives, voting one vote per state delegation on the top three candidates from the electoral college -> President (possible fourth filter)

Good commentary (four years old) can be found here.

If states can constitutionally mandate how their electors vote, could a the Democratic majority of the state of Smallholdertopia mandate that Smallholdertopia’s electors vote for Kerry DESPITE the fact that the majority of Smallholdertopia’s voters pulled the lever for Bush? If the state legislatures have the power to mandate how electors vote, what would prevent close battleground states from passing laws to ignore the wishes of the electorate? Hmmm…

UPDATE: Here is a good discussion of whether states can regulate the votes of the Electoral College.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader must admit that he has a soft spot in his loins for Ann Coulter. Yes, yes. Your Maximum Leader knows all the anti-Ann lines. Too shrill. Too snarky. Too catty. Too thin. (Okay, your Maximum Leader does think she is too thin.) But still, your Maximum Leader has a soft spot for her.

Imagine his surprise when he read that two U of AZ students were arrested for throwing pies at Ann.

Ann Coulter. Covered in custard pie.

Ann Coulter… Covered… in… custard… gggggrrrrrr…

‹/drooling›

Your Maximum Leader wonders if he could get together with Jennifer Love Hewitt and some custard pies… Oy! That thought may have just caused your Maximum Leader to go cross-eyed for a moment…

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is ready with another installment of our (becoming) weekly feature, “Friday Villainy.” This week we will leave the realm of literature and move to the realm of campy Sci-Fi villains.

Yes, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was pondering which Sci-Fi villain would be the lucky first to appear in the Friday Villainy space. He decided you had to have a villain who had been around a while, but has been laying low of late. He needed to be feared by all. He needed to have a little libido action goin’ on. And he needed a real pimpin’ outfit.

Loyal minions, your Maximum Leader presents Ming the Merciless from the Flash Gordon movies.

If you prefer the Ming from the movies of the Buster Crabbe/Charles Middelton era you might prefer this image:

BTW, here is a wonderful site on 1980’s movie villains. NB to the Smallholder, click through and read the write-up on David Lo Pan from one of your favourite movies.

Your Maximum Leader also found this site while looking for Ming images. Smallholder, watch Bonnie closely. She may be a member.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader, while not a Hindu or Buddhist, does believe (somewhat) in Karma. So when he read this guest post on Velociworld: Karma…. he nodded to himself.

Then your Maximum Leader spoke aloud, to no one in particular, “Ah, it was written then. Better to have left him.”

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader had thought that he would write some pithy commentary on Bill Clinton’s aspirations to become UN Secretary General.

But alas, the Poet Laureate got the jump on the story. If Bill could get the Big Ho’s number 5 affected, your Maximum Leader would declare the war on terror won.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minons. Your Maximum Leader nearly soiled himself reading the lastest on iowahawk. Just click and read. Keep beverages away from monitors.

The Red Sox v. Yankees post was really good. As was the Teresa Heinz-Kerry apology.

Carry on.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is flummoxed. Who’da thunk that posting on the Electoral College would be such a hot topic. (It makes your Maximum Leader rethink the whole “naked starlets jello wrestling” post he’s been working on.)

Well, the Smallholder makes a number of good point in his post. Although your Maximum Leader would just like to point out that while he agrees with his esteemed Minister’s assesment that the system currently favours Republicans in small states; it does not always mean it will be thus. Party realignment can and does happen. As it stands today, the Smallholder is exactly right.

Loyal minion, JohnL of TexasBestGrok (which is, by the way, the finest blog on the web for aircraft cheesecake photos and Sci-Fi babeage) writes:

The best proposal I’ve seen yet for reform that takes into account the federalism justification for the Electoral College (especially the protection of smaller states’ interests viz. the larger ones’) is Winner-take-all for 2 votes (equivalent to Senators) and the remaining electors chosen according to the winner of the House Districts. I think Nebraska and Maine use this method currently.

Funny that Molly the Texas Democrat is upset about the Republican redistricting. Pass this little note to her:

“Hello goose? Gander speaking. This sauce would be especially tasty on you, given the actions of the Democratic Party machine in Texas during the 100+ years after Reconstruction.”

Your Maximum Leader will play diplomat here. We all know that BOTH PARTIES are equally cutthroat when it comes to redistricting. It is all about power. And power doesn’t always bring out the best in people. (Except your Maximum Leader, who defies Acton every day.) And your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to beat up on Molly. We have no idea of her thoughts on the whole Texas redistricting fight. Anyway, your Maximum Leader was the one to bring it up. Not Molly. From what your Maximum Leader can discern, Molly appears to be an old-fashioned Texas Democrat. (i.e.: not of the whiney northeast liberal type.)

Excursus: Of course, if Molly cares to share her thoughts, your Maximum Leader would be happy to post them. As for your Maximum Leader, let us just say that he finds whiney legislators remarkably intolerable. If you lose your fight, regroup and fight another day. Don’t get pissy and pack up and move to a different state or country. That brings out the worst in your Maximum Leader. He would be inclined to find such legislators - regardless of party affiliation - remove them from office; and flog them to within an inch of their lives. Part of the game of politics is that you win some and lose some. Your Maximum Leader cannot abide sore losers.

JohnL’s point is an interesting one. And indeed, just as he said, Nebraska and Maine have district apportionment methods of allocating their electors.

Your Maximum Leader maintains his assertion that proportional allocation of Electors would negate one of the psitive aspects of the Electoral College. That of mandate generation.

This website was quite helpful in two ways. First, it helped your Maximum Leader confirm JohnL’s assertion concerning Nebraska and Maine. (Which he seemed to remember hearing about at some point - probably 2000.) And it talked about “Faithless Elector” laws. The “Faithless Elector” is a potential problem for the Electoral College system.

And while we are on the subject… Here is a topical news story to add as a little codicil to our discussion. A West Virginia elector is claiming that he will become a “faithless elector” if called upon to support his candidate, President Bush.

The “Faithless Elector” issue brings up the “Faithless Elector” laws. Thanks to Dr. Jimmy Helms, your Maximum Leader learned many years ago that Virginia had “Faithless Elector” laws. Of course, your Maximum Leader around the same time became convinced (as are the writers of the National Council of State Legislatures site) that the laws might not stand up to a challenge. Your Maximum Leader would like to think that any court would support the rights of the states to determine and guide Electors as they choose. Especially since the implication of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution (even as modified by the 12th Amendment) is that the States should make laws concerning Electors. The text reads:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

So it would appear as though the States could pass and enforce “Faithless Elector” laws. But who knows what convoluted “logic” a court would use in such a case.

Anyhow…

That is all for now. Baseball is on afterall.

Carry on.

Many people want to reform the Electoral College.

The Maximum Leader’s new minion Molly, as a Texas Democrat, perhaps feels a bit frustrated that, for the foreseeable future, her votes in presidential elections will be meaningless.

Many people who live outside the “battleground states” would like to see more attention lavished on their area of the country.

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but it t’aint gonna happen.

According to Article V of the United States Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Amending the constitution is hard. First you have to get a two thirds majority in both houses. Than you have to get three quarters of the states to ratify it. For a reform of the Electoral College, this hurdle is insurmountable.

Lemme ’splain.

The Electoral College favors Republicans; the smaller, more sparsely populated states are heavily Republican. Their Republican Senators would never vote to diminish the proportional influence of their own constituents or of their own party. So a proposed Amendment would never be able to pass the Senate, let alone get ratified by three quarters of the states.

Well, many people would argue, if the Electoral College can’t be revised out of existence, than let each state pass a Colorado style measure. That’s not going to happen either.

States that want more attention in national elections currently don’t receive attention because their citizens will reliably give a majority to one or the other party. But the political party that has the majority in each of those states will not support a proportional allocation of electors because that political party would essentially be giving away a percentage of their own party’s votes in the electoral college.

As Molly may have noticed from the redistricting fights, Texas Republicans play for keeps. Can you imagine the Republican-dominated legislature of Texas agreeing to give away forty percent of the electoral votes by abandoning the winner-take-all sttus quo? I can’t either. The same could be said for Massachusetts.

Colorado is anomalous. Other states will be loathe to follow her example. Ironically, Colorado may be giving up the attention she is currently receiving from Bush and Kerry. If the proportional allocation plan passes, party strategists will acknowledge that Colorado’s electoral votes will probably be evenly split; why would they spend money and effort to shave a few percentage points and get one more elector when they can get more bang for their buck in a state that remains winner-take-all?

So basically, folks: Get used to it. The electoral college is here to stay.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader really enjoys the private correspondence he is able to have with some minions. Oftentimes these minions ask wonderfully pointed questions, or request that your Maximum Leader opine on something or another. Many writing minions have their own blogs. But sometimes your Maximum Leader is lucky enough to strike up a conversation with a non-blog-owning minion.

This brings your Maximum Leader to his divine minion Molly. The divine minion Molly has requested that your Maximum Leader opine on a number of issues. Alas, many of them require some thoughtful reflection. Time for thoughtful reflection has been short as your Maximum Leader has been spending most of his free time watching baseball on TV.

Now, your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to disappoint Molly, or keep her waiting much longer for at least one response. Molly, you see, is a gun-toting Texas Democrat. And being a Democrat in Texas, especially after that whole redistricting thing, means that you can become cranky very quickly. Your Maximum Leader, while very secure in the fortress that is the Villainschloss, doesn’t want to disappoint and make cranky a gun-toting Texan. So, here is the first part of what will be a multipart series of your Maximum Leader opining for Molly.

The divine minion Molly writes your Maximum Leader:

I’d like to know your opinion on the Electoral College. I’m sorry Alexander Hamilton, but I can read and write and I don’t need someone to vote for me. At least let’s update it. I think I’m going to start a petition.

Well, honestly, your Maximum Leader doesn’t think too often about the Electoral College. In fact he generally only thinks about it every 4 years.

First your Maximum Leader must stick up for Alexander Hamilton. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t believe that Hamilton thought people were illiterate and needed their betters to vote for president on their behalf. Hamilton and the other Framers thought that the yeomen farmers (frontier smallholders if you will) may not have enough exposure to the news of men of stature who should be elected president. While this may have been true in 1787, it wasn’t true by 1800. As you can learn from reading Democracy in America, Americans read newspapers and other broadsheets voraciously and were probably better informed in 1804 than they are in 2004.

But while we are talking about the Framers it is important to understand their concerns that led to the creation of the Electoral College. The Framers were not big believers in democracy. They were big believers in democratic republics. It was important not to have rule by the mob, but rule by elected represenatives. In this spirit the Electoral College makes perfect sense. Think about it. The nation was a collection of autonomous states. (This is in 1787 remember.) The people elected the House of Representatives. The states elected the Senate. And it made sense for some sort of blend of the two to elect the president.

Overall, your Maximum Leader believes the system has worked better than the Framers planned. Many of the Framers thought that elections would regularly go to the House of Represenatives because no person would win in the Electoral College. (Your Maximum Leader seems to remember some Framers assuming that the president would be elected from the membership of the House every year.)

That said, given what has happened in our recent past, reform might be in order. And it seems as though Molly has already given thought to this course with her petition.

And speaking of refom of the Electoral College, the people of Kilgore’s home state have already started work on changing how their electors are distributed. In Colorado, Proposition (Amendment) 36, if approved, would distribute Electors to candidates in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote the candidate won. (If you care to click the link, it is a PDF. Amendment 36 begins on page 13 of 59.)

While your Maximum Leader has never given much thought to proportional distribution of Electoral votes, he does not favour Colorado’s ballot measure. He wouldn’t support it, if he were eligible to vote in Colorado, because it would take effect in this election. That is generally a bad idea. Run elections according to a set of rules that everyone knows in advance. Change them in 2008 if you want, but change them this year. No.

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t mind the idea of Electoral College reform. But it isn’t something for which he is going to agitate. He is not in favour of amending the US Constitution. (Which is, as we all know, very hard to do.) (Luckily.)

According to current law and practice, states determine how their own Electors are allocated. All practice the “winner-take-all” format. Your Maximum Leader supposes that the advantage to proportional allocation of Electors is that it puts every state in play. Living in Virginia, as your Maximum Leader does, he doesn’t get much attention from either candidate. Virginia (contrary to the Kerry internal polling) is almost certainly going to remain Republican.

Excursus: Your Maximum Leader only says “almost certainly” because, like sports, no one really knows how it will turn out until the election is held.

Your Maximum Leader would like to get a little more attention to his beloved Commonwealth from the major party candidates. Proportional allocation of Virginia’s Electoral votes may accomplish that.

Proportional allocation of Electors has some downsides though. There are two major downsides.

The first major downside as your Maximum Leader sees it is the elimination of the single greatest benefit the Electoral College has shown over its history; mandate generation.

Yes, dear minions. Mandate generation. Let us look at President Reagan in 1984. An election considered a complete total landslide by almost any reckoning. Reagan got 58% of the popular vote and 525 Electoral votes. Proportional electoral allocation would have had Reagan get 312 Electoral votes. Still enough to win, but not the 525 to 13 trouncing he gave to Walter Mondale.

How about Reagan in 1980? Reagan got 51% of the popular vote and 489 Electoral votes. Proportional allocation would give Reagan 274 Electoral votes. An Electoral squeeker.

The second major downside would be close elections would be sent to the House of Representatives (as the Framers envisioned).

Let us not forget our good friend and drinking buddy William Jefferson Clinton. President Clinton received 43% of the popular vote in 1992. But he received 370 Electoral votes. (G.H.W. Bush got 37% and 168 respectively.) In 1996, President Clinton received 49 % of the popular vote; but won 379 Electoral votes. (Bob Dole got 40% and 159 respectively.)

Let us look at the Clinton victories. Had proportional electoral allocation been in effect nationally in 1992, Clinton would not have received the 270 Electoral votes needed to win. He would have gotten 231. The outcome of the election would have been decided by the House of Representatives, and Clinton would have been elected. Since the House was Democratically controlled.

But in 1996, Clinton would have gotten only 264 electoral votes. If the election goes to the House again Clinton doesn’t pull it out. Why? Because the Republicans take over the House in the 1996 elections. And the first thing the new Republican Congress has to do is certify the results of the Electoral College vote. They would certify that no candidate gt 270 votes, and then decide for themselves. And your Maximum Leader is not so naive to believe that party affiliation wasn’t going to influence a vote…

So, on the whole you Maximum Leader doesn’t see the need for much change of the system. It works well, generally. What would really help us, in your Maximum Leader’s opinion, is a change in the way we vote. What is wrong with the way we used here in Virginia for many years… You take a division.

What is take a division you ask? Well, all the eligible voters go to the Courthouse and they go into a room. Once in the room, the judge asks all voters for Candidate X to move to one side, and everyone for Candidate Y to move to the other side. Then you take a head-count. Clean, efficient, and everyone’s intent is known. (None of this pregnant chad stuff.)

Note to Minions: Your Maximum Leader doesn’t feel the need to keep this “secret ballot” stuff in the MWO. Remember that.

Carry on.