On the topic of Electoral College reform, North Carolina is headed towards altering how the state awards electoral votes. Constitutionally-speaking, it is up to the states to decide how they wish to allot electoral votes. Except for Maine and Nebraska, every state and D.C. currently award all electoral votes to whichever candidate receives the greatest plurality of popular votes in the state, a method known as the winner-take-all method.

Maine and Nebraska employ the district allocation method. With this plan, each candidate is awarded one electoral vote for each congressional district won in the state. The winner of the state popular vote is awarded the state’s final two electoral votes.

Since Nebraska adopted this plan in 1972 and Maine in 1996, neither state has ever split their electoral votes even though they are set-up for such a scenario. North Carolina, though, would likely split their electoral votes.

As computed by my thesis, here are some past results:

2004
Bush: 11
Kerry: 4

2000
Bush: 11
Gore: 3

1996
Dole: 11
Clinton: 3

1992
Bush: 9
Clinton: 5

1988
Bush: 12
Dukakis: 1

1984
Reagan: 13
Mondale: 0

So, things could get interesting next year. Although North Carolina splitting electoral votes isn’t likely going to change much in the national electoral count, this little experiment could prove interesting for the future of the Electoral College.

I’ve finally completed my Masters thesis project, entitled “Counting the Vote: An Interactive Study of Electoral College Reform.” Viewable at: www.joehribar.com/countingthevote

In the project, users can learn about the Electoral College, several reform proposals to alter the system, and finally in the last section, users can select a past presidential election (2004-1984) and a reform proposal to see if or how that proposal could have changed the outcome of that election.

Overall, I’m very satisfied with the outcome. Eventually I’d like to add more elections to see if or how they could change. Until then, enjoy.

Gotta love people who can make fun of themselves and have a good time doing it.

Mmmm.

The New York Times has a really cool interactive map detailing contributions to the 2008 presidential candidates.

Burning fossil fuels and coal to produce energy no doubt have an impact on global warming. Being dependent on foreign oil to produce gasoline for our vehicles no doubt has an impact on our national security. So why is there not a serious, all-out push for new power and fuel sources? I’m not too sure there really is a solid answer to that question.

What I don’t understand is that we have a huge, gaseous body beating energy down at us every day and we’re not seriously tapping into this free, clean, and uber-renewable source of energy. From The New York Times:

But for all the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors say that moving this energy source from niche to mainstream—last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the country’s electricity supply—is unlikely without significant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is not expected to happen anytime soon.

Even a quarter century from now, says the Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 or 3 percent of the grid electricity in the United States.

Within 8 years we made a pledge to put a man on the moon and fulfilled that pledge; in 5 years we made a commitment to building atomic weapons and we did it. The need for alternative energy is massively apparent. Why can’t we commit ourselves to a massive, Manhattan-Project-esque research venture to achieve this need? The sun has been shining; we’re just not letting it in.

Question: what does the war on terror and the war in Iraq mean to the president? Can he take either seriously?

This report from the Los Angeles Times notes the vast majority of foreign insurgent fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia (nod: The Daily Dish):

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior [U.S. military] officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

The Bush family and the Saudis, of course, go way back. Funny, then, why the president doesn’t mention the Saudi foreign fighters in Iraq.

Now on to the Pakistanis. President Bush in 2001 stated this:

You’re either with us or against us
in the fight against terror.

But then we’ve recently learned that since we didn’t want to jeopardize our “relations” with Pakistan and President Musharraf, we in 2005 aborted a military strike to take out top al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. Curious. So the strike could have hurt our relations with this “ally” in the war on terror. If Pakistan is our ally, what good are they doing us? If they aren’t with us in rooting out terrorists, then aren’t they against us? From The New York Times:

The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.

What exactly are we paying them for? And if President Bush cannot take either of these wars seriously, how are the rest of us supposed to? Talk about seriously misguided.

Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who authored the first article of impeachment against President Clinton, discusses why he thinks President Bush’s crimes are “more worrisome.”

There is a clear and monumental case to impeach both the president and vice president. Two or three years ago, such talk and action might have been viewed as strictly partisan politics. Today, though, given the charges that could mount against both of them, the issue of impeaching either or both of them is far above and beyond being partisan. These two have subverted the Constitution and the rule of law and are setting an increasingly dangerous precedent for future administrations.

This precedent MUST be checked by Congress. Congress over the last several years has been criminally negligent and more-or-less an accomplice in this administration’s crimes against the American people and humanity. No surprise that Congress did nothing to check the president’s power when the GOP controlled Congress. Now that the Democrats control Congress, though, one would think or hope that Congress would do their job, but this Congress, as Bruce Fein stated, is “almost invertebrate.” Without Congress checking the power of the executive, the executive not only can but will become as powerful as it can. The Founding Fathers, having structured the government to avoid such a powerful executive, must be rolling in their graves.

On impeaching the vice president, Andrew Sullivan writes:

the only language Cheney understands is force. And even if it were to fail, the instructive power of the exercise would be considerable.

The exercise, of course, is impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. On one hand, the administration will be out of office in a year and a half, so is all the trouble and mess that will evolve really worth it? On the other hand, though, this administration and specifically this vice president are setting a dangerous and frightening precedent for subverting the Constitution. A precedent that must be checked. If there is a more effective way to check the power of this administration than to at least impeach (conviction may be unlikely) a principle architect of the power grab and constitutional subversion, then please let me know.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

By changing only a handful of words throughout Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the address can still be relevant to modern times. By honoring those who have gone before us and those who have given the last full measure of devotion in support and defense of this nation, we can rise up to meet their sacrifices and restore hope in our mighty American Dream.

There are a great many problems facing this nation today. There are a great many people around the world who would wish ill on this nation today. And there are a great many reasons to feel all hope is lost.

But the most wonderful aspect about our nation is that the United States is more than tangible things. It’s more than bricks and mortar. It’s more than the computers, the corn fields, and the cars that all sustain the material world we know.

America is about people, about resiliency, about ideas. Yes, we are today experiencing rough times both at home and abroad. We look into the past and see golden times and then look at what we have today and see downtrodden times. But the beauty that is American is in the American Dream. The real bricks and mortar of America is an idea. The idea of equality; the idea of success; the idea of hope. Hope that one day things will get better.

When the nation gets lost in the woods, the idea returns us to a safe path. When we are wandering aimlessly looking for the light switch, the idea shows us the light. The idea reasons with us that no matter how bad things are or how bad we think things will become, the American Dream is bigger than any one person or any one problem.

Evil-doers may destroy buildings, cars, forests, markets, or houses, but they cannot destroy the American Dream. The dream goes on. And that’s what makes this country great.

Happy Independence Day.

(Photo: Andrea Church / MorgueFile)

A nice compilation of editorials from some newspapers around the country dealing with Libby’s get-out-of-jail-free card.

President Bush’s commutation of a pal’s prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It’s the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president.

—Seattle Post-Intelligencer

(Nod: Carpetbagger Report)

The president has again proven his administration has no respect for the law. In a surprise as big as the period at the end of this sentence, President Bush today commuted former Vice President Cheney aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby after he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

I seem to remember not too long ago that the Washington GOP went after a sitting president for the same charges, only in his case he was lying about sex and not a national security secret. If anyone had doubts about this administration’s disrespect for the law, those doubts should be evaporated along with this president’s credibility.

Some level-headed commentary:

This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.

—Senator Barack Obama

(Photo: Jim / morgueFile)

The problem with conducting polls used to be how to account for households with no phone; now the problem is how to account for households with only a cell phone. Quote:

According to government statistics released last month, nearly 13% of U.S. households (12.8%) cannot now be reached by the typical telephone survey because they have only a cell phone and no landline telephone.

How exciting it is to be part of the problem….

Some figures from the Consumer Product Safety Commission:

In June 2007, there were 27 listed product recalls:

• 3 (11%) were products manufactured elsewhere
• 8 (30%) were products manufactured in the U.S.
• 16 (59%) were products manufactured in China

In May 2007, there were 36 listed product recalls:

• 1 (3%) was a product manufactured in the U.S. and Canada
• 1 (3%) was a product manufactured in the U.S. and China
• 2 (6%) were products manufactured in the U.S.
• 7 (19%) were products manufactured elsewhere
• 25 (69%) were products manufactured in China

What do these statistics tell us? Several things, I suppose. On one hand, plenty of the products we consume in the United States are made in China, so the greater percentage of things made there, the greater chance that a product with a recall will be from China.

On the other hand, though, these numbers might tell us that oversight is missing somewhere in the process, whether it be at the Chinese manufacturing plant, the American distribution company, or either of the two countries’ governments.

The gross percentage of recalls over the past two months that were for products manufactured in China compounded with the tainted pet food a couple months ago, the unfair devaluation of Chinese currency, and accusations of technology espionage all leave me wondering what the next several years are going to bring on the international stage. China is growing, perhaps faster than they, or we, can check and regulate. Next summer Beijing hosts the Summer Olympic Games and will be thrust into the world’s spotlight. Chances are, once given the attention, they won’t be willing to give it up.

(Photo: Gary Tamin / stock.xchng)

It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.—Justice Steven Breyer, 28 Jun, on how certain other Supreme Court justices have voted this term, votes that have driven the court to the right

In another change of direction, the Supreme Court changed its original ruling not to rule on whether or not Guantanamo detainees have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. federal court and will now review the case. Let’s hope the court sides with human rights and not with the barbaric position of the Bush administration.