Neutral political question about US Presidency

[sk270]

Why does the President not take office until January after being elected in November?

I believe that the original delay was the result of travel and communication being slow back in the 1700's.

I also understand that the Founding Fathers did not trust the electorate to make the right choice and so created the Electoral College to ensure that the correct person was chosen. Even with 20th century technology it doesn't make sense that it would take so long to choose between the two candidates.

Why have things not changed that much in the 21st century?

I can't find a realistic answer when comparing the US to other democracies.

Thanks to anyone who can shed light on this question.

[Jigger]

It used to be March or April for inauguration.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...n-january.html

Google is great and easy to use.

[Dewey Cox]

Whenever one of my friends asks me a question, I belittle them for not googling it first too.

[liar]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Whenever one of my friends asks me a question, I belittle them for not googling it first too.

Hard to get a "general discussion" going with google .

[Grizzly Adams]

It's an established process, best not mess with it, Kind of like our Senate.

Grizz

[Mavrick]

Yep, don't ask Grandpa anymore his life time knowledge is useless, use grandpa google for all your government, hunting, fishing, and money question. Soon people can die at 40, no longer needed, Google will be there for you.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Jigger

It used to be March or April for inauguration.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...n-january.html

Google is great and easy to use.

I know how to Google and it is great except when it doesn't answer my question, like your link. I asked why things haven't changed.

No other democracy, as far as I know, waits nearly this long for the new leader to take over. Why does the US not modernize and change the system that was created over 200 years ago?

What advantage do the Americans see in retaining this system?

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Dewey Cox

Whenever one of my friends asks me a question, I belittle them for not googling it first too.

And what do you say then they say they already Googled and couldn't find the answer? Maybe help them find it?

[leeelmer]

From my understanding of civics, this was the established practise of days gone by.
Also give the time for the newly elected president to have his training done, there is quite a bit of that.
Also it gives the courts time to sort out all the legal challenges, because each state in the union has different election laws, and when a election is close( this has happened many times in the past) then those election results can be certified before the jan inauguration date.
I know the mass media has said it is all Trumps doing, but court challenges are very normal and have been for 200 years in the states, and being a completely different election type, than we have here, with 50 states all doing there election slightly differently it does take months sometimes to get it all sorted out.

[walking buffalo]

First, Remember that the USA is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy".

Google for definitions.

Other "democracies" certainly do have elections that take days, weeks to determine results. Google....

The real Presidential "election" has not occurred yet.
The real election is when the Electoral College casts their votes.

So far, the voting has been to determine how individual states will have their Electoral College presidential electors vote.


This is why despite what the media is trying to brainwash people into believing, there is currently no President-elect at this time.

Factors such as giving a new president time to get ducks in a row, the time for legal challenges are critical for a smooth and legal transition of power.


There is little need to rush the transition.
Moving too fast can cause more harm than good.
Despite what so many people hooked on instant satisfaction want,
It is So much more important to do it right than to do it fast.


IMO, the US constitutional system has built in many more layers of protection to ensure a fair and true election.
The writers of the constitution were amazingly brilliant people.



Who knows what happens if legal challenges result in an undecided Electoral College by mid Dec?
The US Founders already thought about that.
Congress will vote for who will be President.
In this election, it is expected that despite the Democratic Party holding the majority in Congress, the Republican party will easily win this vote.


Can anyone explain why?

[Selkirk]

.
The US 'Electoral College' explained in Detail 👉 https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/01/polit...ned/index.html

And some of its history does not bode well :

"The stain of slavery is on the Electoral College as it is on all US history. The formula for apportioning congressmen, which is directly tied to the number of electors, relied at that time on the 3/5 Compromise, whereby each slave in a state counted as fraction of a person to apportion congressional seats. This gave states in the South with many slaves more power despite the fact that large portions of their populations could not vote and were not free."

In all its different forms (in many different countries) Democracy is 'A Messy Business', but better than the alternative.

Selkirk

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

First, Remember that the USA is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy".

Google for definitions.

Other "democracies" certainly do have elections that take days, weeks to determine results. Google....

The real Presidential "election" has not occurred yet.
The real election is when the Electoral College casts their votes.

So far, the voting has been to determine how individual states will have their Electoral College presidential electors vote.


This is why despite what the media is trying to brainwash people into believing, there is currently no President-elect at this time.

Factors such as giving a new president time to get ducks in a row, the time for legal challenges are critical for a smooth and legal transition of power.


There is little need to rush the transition.
Moving too fast can cause more harm than good.
Despite what so many people hooked on instant satisfaction want,
It is So much more important to do it right than to do it fast.


IMO, the US constitutional system has built in many more layers of protection to ensure a fair and true election.
The writers of the constitution were amazingly brilliant people.



Who knows what happens if legal challenges result in an undecided Electoral College by mid Dec?
The US Founders already thought about that.
Congress will vote for who will be President.
In this election, it is expected that despite the Democratic Party holding the majority in Congress, the Republican party will easily win this vote.


Can anyone explain why?

Partially right. The united States of America is a constitutional republic. The United States is a federal corporation acting as a democracy (see 28 USC 3002).

The democracy retains elements of the republic such as the voting system. (many explanations why, not worth getting into right now) The electoral college was designed to keep the highly populated areas from completely dominating the lower populated areas (a problem we constantly complain about in Canada). Further to that, the senate representation is 2 seats per state to add further balance.

As for your question about the final vote going to the House of representatives, it's not the elected federal house representatives that get to choose. Each state house appoints a representative from their state to go and vote. Each state has one representative. The vast majority of state houses are republican controlled and know they owe their popularity to Trump.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Partially right. The united States of America is a constitutional republic. The United States is a federal corporation acting as a democracy (see 28 USC 3002).

The democracy retains elements of the republic such as the voting system. (many explanations why, not worth getting into right now) The electoral college was designed to keep the highly populated areas from completely dominating the lower populated areas (a problem we constantly complain about in Canada). Further to that, the senate representation is 2 seats per state to add further balance.

As for your question about the final vote going to the House of representatives, it's not the elected federal house representatives that get to choose. Each state house appoints a representative from their state to go and vote. Each state has one representative. The vast majority of state houses are republican controlled and know they owe their popularity to Trump.

Thank you (for the whole post)!

Bolded answer...
Sad how many US news articles and popular personalities keep getting this wrong in claiming that a vote by Congress will absolutely be for Biden because they hold the majority of seats.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Thank you (for the whole post)!

Bolded answer...
Sad how many US news articles and popular personalities keep getting this wrong in claiming that a vote by Congress will absolutely be for Biden because they hold the majority of seats.

NP

I think the media is trying to create a 'stolen election' narrative for when Trump wins. The popular election is only one small component. I think Trump knows he's going to win in the end, however the current lawsuits are to make things appear better and less like he stole the election.

Biden is currently a pretender to the throne, is NOT the President Elect, and if he discussed policy in phone calls with other world leaders should be jailed under the Logan Act.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

First, Remember that the USA is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy".

Google for definitions.

Other "democracies" certainly do have elections that take days, weeks to determine results. Google....

Google tells me: The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.” and Democracies and republics use either direct or representational systems, but in a republic, the constitution protects the inalienable rights of the citizenry regardless of the popular vote.

Does not our Bill of Rights provided the latter protection?

I was not very successful in Googling the time between election and installation of the new president but I did learn that the US is unusual in allowing the winner of the popular vote to lose the election.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by sk270

Google tells me: The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.” and Democracies and republics use either direct or representational systems, but in a republic, the constitution protects the inalienable rights of the citizenry regardless of the popular vote.

Does not our Bill of Rights provided the latter protection?

I was not very successful in Googling the time between election and installation of the new president but I did learn that the US is unusual in allowing the winner of the popular vote to lose the election.

Canada's Bill of Rights is treated as merely a suggestion by the Courts. Federal government lacked jurisdiction to enact parts of it.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by sk270

Google tells me: The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.” and Democracies and republics use either direct or representational systems, but in a republic, the constitution protects the inalienable rights of the citizenry regardless of the popular vote.

Does not our Bill of Rights provided the latter protection?

I was not very successful in Googling the time between election and installation of the new president but I did learn that the US is unusual in allowing the winner of the popular vote to lose the election.

Actually our system is quite similar, and even less democratic. In a Canadian election our ridings act much like the electoral college. In a first past the post election the party with a majority of the ridings (not popular vote) wins the house. The leader of that party then becomes the PM. No sperate vote, and the selection is done internally by the party. A majority government in Canada can pretty much do as it pleases and is only really constrained by the thoughts of re election.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

First, Remember that the USA is a constitutional republic, not a 'democracy".

Google for definitions.

Other "democracies" certainly do have elections that take days, weeks to determine results. Google....

The real Presidential "election" has not occurred yet.
The real election is when the Electoral College casts their votes.

So far, the voting has been to determine how individual states will have their Electoral College presidential electors vote.


This is why despite what the media is trying to brainwash people into believing, there is currently no President-elect at this time.

Factors such as giving a new president time to get ducks in a row, the time for legal challenges are critical for a smooth and legal transition of power.


There is little need to rush the transition.
Moving too fast can cause more harm than good.
Despite what so many people hooked on instant satisfaction want,
It is So much more important to do it right than to do it fast.


IMO, the US constitutional system has built in many more layers of protection to ensure a fair and true election.
The writers of the constitution were amazingly brilliant people.



Who knows what happens if legal challenges result in an undecided Electoral College by mid Dec?
The US Founders already thought about that.
Congress will vote for who will be President.
In this election, it is expected that despite the Democratic Party holding the majority in Congress, the Republican party will easily win this vote.


Can anyone explain why?

I can tell you why it’s such a brilliant system but might be breaking forum rules to do so.

[ward]

Originally Posted by chuck

I can tell you why it’s such a brilliant system but might be breaking forum rules to do so.

Take a chance.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Actually our system is quite similar, and even less democratic. In a Canadian election our ridings act much like the electoral college. In a first past the post election the party with a majority of the ridings (not popular vote) wins the house. The leader of that party then becomes the PM. No sperate vote, and the selection is done internally by the party. A majority government in Canada can pretty much do as it pleases and is only really constrained by the thoughts of re election.

I think this is the same in all parliamentary governments with first-past-the post elections, although I admit I'm not sure. An advantage over the American system is that the party chosen by a majority of ridings can get things done without the stalemates brought about by the division of power among the three federal branches. Our system reflects a greater trust in the electorate to choose between the parties and their policies and then letting the winning party get things done.

Currently, at least, I don't think the number of electors is based on the state population but, theoretically at least, each Canadian riding has about the same population. This seems fairer to me in general although I sometimes wish we had the system the US does for its Senate.

I do think that the Canadian courts constrain government action to some extent, an example being their interpretations of aboriginal and treaty rights.

I still wonder why the US doesn't streamline its system a bit. Considering suggestions above, I don't think that presidential candidates need to take weeks to choose a cabinet or get up to speed on issues. The civil service continues to run things. Witness the revolving office doors of President Trump's Cabinet and senior bureaucrats.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Canada's Bill of Rights is treated as merely a suggestion by the Courts. Federal government lacked jurisdiction to enact parts of it.

I understand the danger implied in your post. Can you provide specific examples and explain your last sentence? Thanks.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by sk270

I understand the danger implied in your post. Can you provide specific examples and explain your last sentence? Thanks.

The way that I read it is that the 1960 Bill of Rights guaranteed rights to property in various forms. Property and the rights to it are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments by division of powers.

Had they done it as a referendum and it be accepted by the population, it's quite possible that it would still have force. However, it was merely an act of the federal parliament alone.

Parts of the Bill of Rights were used in Canada's ineffective Charter.

[RavYak]

Transition period.

President elect has to select advisors and get everything in place for him to start acting as president. President and advisors need to start meeting with the current president and staff to get up to date on current status of literally everything going on in the world.

It isn't like being a shelf stocker at Walmart. Lots of important and confidential subjects to get up to date on and an effective transition is important.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...0their%20party.

[Osky]

Here we refer to ourselves simply as a Representative Republic. The Electoral College was brilliant in its conception. Without it candidates would simply key in on the populated state’s Like CA, FL, PE, etc. much of the country would be true flyover country and many states would have no input.
I actually would like to see the same systems for states. In MN we have Two counties that control the entire state even tho the rest of the state votes red. The city people, liberals, and the exploding welfare centers bury the rest of us in debt and higher fees aka taxes.
Selkirk said it well in his last sentence.

Osky

[Outbound]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Canada's Bill of Rights is treated as merely a suggestion by the Courts. Federal government lacked jurisdiction to enact parts of it.

This is pretty much correct. Section 33 allows the government to "temporarily" override any and all sections if they see fit, and then renew that override if they want to as well.

Section 33 allows Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights).

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...eck/art33.html

The rights Americans have are unalienable, which means that while interpretation of them differs from state to state (eg the 2nd amendment and varying state gun laws), those rights can not, and will not, ever be taken away.

Canadians on the other hand are subjects, not citizens. Our "rights" are more like privileges granted by a benevolent government. It's all part of the Commonwealth's history of being subservient to a monarchy.

[Osky]

Originally Posted by Outbound

This is pretty much correct. Section 33 allows the government to "temporarily" override any and all sections if they see fit, and then renew that override if they want to as well.



https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...eck/art33.html

The rights Americans have are unalienable, which means that while interpretation of them differs from state to state (eg the 2nd amendment and varying state gun laws), those rights can not, and will not, ever be taken away.

Canadians on the other hand are subjects, not citizens. Our "rights" are more like privileges granted by a benevolent government. It's all part of the Commonwealth's history of being subservient to a monarchy.

This is one of the greatest threats to America right now. Legislation from the bench. It is NOT supposed to happen here for very good reason. People put in power should not be able to or allowed to appoint judges for political leanings. Judges here are to first and foremost to uphold the constitution and the rights of the people. The betrayal of this has become a horrible cancer.

Osky

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Outbound

The rights Americans have are unalienable, which means that while interpretation of them differs from state to state (eg the 2nd amendment and varying state gun laws), those rights can not, and will not, ever be taken away.

Canadians on the other hand are subjects, not citizens. Our "rights" are more like privileges granted by a benevolent government. It's all part of the Commonwealth's history of being subservient to a monarchy.

I do think it's time that Canada stopped paying homage to the British monarchy. I do not know how that could be done and assume it would be very difficult. The American colonies achieved independence only through violent revolution. There must be a peaceful way of achieving the same thing.

Governments in Canada do have much greater leeway than those in the US with regard to passing laws that suspend basic rights. However, this is mitigated to some extent by the fact that the governments have, more or less, been democratically elected. I do not trust politicians as individuals but I don't want to become paranoid about the system as a whole.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by sk270

I do think it's time that Canada stopped paying homage to the British monarchy. I do not know how that could be done and assume it would be very difficult. The American colonies achieved independence only through violent revolution. There must be a peaceful way of achieving the same thing.

Governments in Canada do have much greater leeway than those in the US with regard to passing laws that suspend basic rights. However, this is mitigated to some extent by the fact that the governments have, more or less, been democratically elected. I do not trust politicians as individuals but I don't want to become paranoid about the system as a whole.

It's a little bit hard to break free when each and every politician and person working directly for the government must swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.