The Glade 4.0

If people are actually voting for a certain candidate and those votes are being ignored, (as opposed to now where nobody votes third party to begin with) then there is no plausible non-violent means of changing the conditions. How can you possibly affect the government if they can just ignore you entirely and put whoever they want in power?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Maine allocates by Congressional District wins, not state wins. Perot won several districts in Maine and got no electoral votes for it. Winning the popular vote has little to do with the reality that Perot got no electoral votes despite being beholden for them in at two states.

All write-in votes are discarded by the FEC, as a candidate must receive 5% in a single state and 1% nationwide (represented by votes in all 50 states) to be counted.

Let's entertain this aside for a minute, Diamondeye ...

Exactly what consequences for malfeasance, misbehavior, criminal activity, or simple fraud do we have to check our elected or government officials? Exactly what leverage can the average citizen exert over their government without force of arms? Say, "Elections," I dare you; after all, we've a 10 year posting history wherein you give a free pass to all levels of government for all activities. In fact, you're generally more offended people want to hold government accountable than you are that the government is breaking the law.

So, again, let me know exactly what course of action you would have people take.

You know this; you may not want to admit it, but you know this to be true.

I think the fact that we have a black President rebuts that view, Khross.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Sorry, see my edits above. There are still numerous ways to effect change in that case. If the day comes when electors in a state really don't follow the majority vote, there will be massive pressure for reform.

Really? I'm not sure if that's the most laughable or most racist statement I've ever seen.

Can't it be both?

Seriously though, how is it either? Black people were systematically oppressed by both government and civil society and effectively shut out of the power structures that would be necessary to effect change right up until our parents' generation (assuming you're roughly my age), yet in just a few decades, we've gone from that situation to one where a black person has been elected President, a black person sits on the Supreme Court, and black people are present (under-represented, but very much present) in every one of the power structures they were previously shut out of. That's some pretty effective change in a relatively short period of time, and it was mostly achieved through peaceful means.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

What kind of nonviolent pressure can possibly be exerted when you can't remove the politicians from office?

If a black man somehow joined the KKK, would that be reform?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

You can remove them from office, though. The hypo you suggested was that a third-party candidate wins a majority of the popular vote in a single state, but is denied the electoral votes under existing laws. First of all, there's a very strong cultural presumption that electors will follow the will of the majority, and 24 states actually have laws on the books to punish electors who don't vote for the candidate they pledge ahead of time to vote for. Nevertheless, let's grant your premise and say that the electors in one state say screw it and don't go along with the popular majority, and suing isn't an option because they technically haven't broken any laws. Ok, so what are your options for the next time? Well, you can choose different electors! You can protest, run a media blitz and otherwise lobby the state legislature (where most of the relevant laws are made) to reform the laws. You can campaign for state-level candidates who support reform and/or run third-party candidates in those races (no electors to get in the way there; just straight majority wins elections!). You can take similar actions at the federal level with respect to any relevant laws that are made there. The only election where a popular majority doesn't necessarily win is the Presidential election, and the relevant laws are mostly made at the state level, where government is actually relatively accessible.

Um, no. That would not, in any way, justify "bring[ing] out the guns". Armed revolt is only valid when (i) conditions are truly oppressive and (ii) there is no plausible non-violent means of changing those conditions.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Ron Stallworth was a member of the KKK in Colorado Springs in the 70s, RD; granted he was a cop and undercover and all, but the man was black.

The Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed, because it eliminates from the Constitution the States' primary method of checking the Federal government.

The Seventeenth Amendment is unconstitutional.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Yeah, I figured someone would dig up an example of the KKK allowing a black person to join who ostensibly shared their pro-segregation views. Since the black people in government today obviously do not support the former anti-black agenda of the government, however, I took it as a given that Taskiss' analogy to the KKK likewise involved a black person who did not share the KKK's racist views.

The White House’s shifting IRS account
By: Reid J. Epstein
May 20, 2013 06:41 PM EDT

The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House’s ever-shifting narrative.

Here’s how the White House account has evolved:

Friday, May 10: IRS official Lois Lerner disclosed at an American Bar Association conference that the agency had targeted non-profit applications from groups with tea party language in their name.

That afternoon, Carney said he didn’t know when the White House first became aware of the investigation.

“I don’t have an answer to that specifically,” Carney said. “I know that when the IG began investigating it, that it’s been investigating it for however long the IRS has said, but I don’t have a specific answer to that.”

(Also on POLITICO: Baucus and Hatch expand IRS probe)

Outside the White House, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said that he’d first learned of the details of the investigation from news reports.

Monday, May 13: Obama, during his press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, said he first learned about the IRS story from the press.

“I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this,” Obama said. “I think it was on Friday.”

Later in the day, Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One that White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler’s office was told “in the week of April 22” that an inspector general’s report was coming “involving the office in Cincinnati.”

“But that’s all they were informed as a normal sort of heads up,” Carney said. “And we have never — we don’t have access to, nor should we, the IG’s report or any draft versions of it.”

Tuesday, May 14: The inspector general’s report was released, and Obama released a statement directing Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to “hold those responsible for these failures accountable.”

Wednesday, May 15: Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller resigned at Obama’s request.

Follow @politico
Thursday, May 16: Obama, during his press conference with Turkey’s prime minister, repeated that he’d been unaware of the inspector general’s report before learning about it via press reports.

“I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press,” Obama said. “Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. They tend to be a process that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of.”

Friday, May 17: Lew, during an interview with Bloomberg News, revealed he’d actually first learned of the inspector general’s investigation in March, adding that he hadn’t been aware of the details of the report until May 10.

Monday, May 20: A senior White House official confirmed to POLITICO that Treasury Department staffers told White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler the inspector general report was nearing completion during the week of April 22.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney originally acknowledged that the counsel’s office had been told of the investigation during a press briefing last Monday. But Carney didn’t explicitly say Ruemmler had learned that conservative groups were targeted and how they were singled out.

Later, during the White House briefing, Carney told reporters that some staff in the counsel’s office were told of the report — and others nearing completion — a week earlier, on April 16.

Ruemmler did inform chief of staff Denis McDonough’s office of the investigation, Carney said, and other senior staff were also told of the report. Carney wouldn’t say who those other staffers were, but did say there were communications between White House and Treasury Department staff ahead of the first news reports of the IRS investigation 10 days ago.

Though senior staff knew of the probe, Carney said Ruemmler had concluded that the investigation was “not a matter she should convey to the president” until the report was finalized.

On Monday, Carney pushed back at reporters frustrated with the shifting narrative. “I said that I didn’t know (these details) until Friday, but I’m getting this information to you now,” he said.

Republicans instantly took issue with the latest White House timeline.

“I can’t wait until tomorrow’s version of events,” tweeted Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Black people were systematically oppressed by both government and civil society and effectively shut out of the power structures that would be necessary to effect change right up until our parents' generation (assuming you're roughly my age), yet in just a few decades, we've gone from that situation to one where a black person has been elected President, a black person sits on the Supreme Court, and black people are present (under-represented, but very much present) in every one of the power structures they were previously shut out of. That's some pretty effective change in a relatively short period of time, and it was mostly achieved through peaceful means.

Yeah, I figured someone would dig up an example of the KKK allowing a black person to join who ostensibly shared their pro-segregation views. Since the black people in government today obviously do not support the former anti-black agenda of the government, however, I took it as a given that Taskiss' analogy to the KKK likewise involved a black person who did not share the KKK's racist views.

The civil rights movement was, on the whole, peaceful, and riots were not essential to its success. In point of fact, images of peaceful protests being put down by extreme measures by Southern states were far more influential than riots.

Don't tell other people they need to read more. They don't, or even if they do, that isn't subject to your determination. They shouldn't be telling that to you either. Each of us has our own areas where we're more informed than others around us; yours is healthcare administration, mine is military and strategic issues, Corolinth's and Arathain's is mathematics and engineering and so on and so forth. There's entirely too much of this crap of "Go read more. Obviously you're uninformed or you'd agree with me" around here.