Gay Marriage

Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.  The Court will uphold California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The decision on DOMA will be based on the 14^th Amendment, whereas the decision on Prop 8 will be based on the 10^th Amendment.

The Beans Is Gonna Come Up.

This is a story my mom used to tell me when I was a child.  She told in her inimitable south Georgia dialect.
 

 

You know, I found that you can learn something most anytime.  One of the most important lessons I ever learned in my whole life I learned when I was six years old.
 

One morning I was a sittin’ at the table eating breakfast when Pa came in from the high field where he had already been plowin’ and he said, “Louise, how would you like to help me today?” And I looked up at him because I ain’t never helped Pa before. Why, I’d helped Ma around the house. But mostly it was things like dustin’ the chair legs or looking after the baby or sweeping the front steps-----I ain’t never helped Pa before. And I was ten feet tall. I said, “Yes, sir.”

Well, we started off after breakfast across the backyard over the fields to the high field.  I was havin’ to step pretty lively to keep up with him. We got over there and there was all these nice rows that Pa had already planted. And he said, “today I’m a gonna show you how to plant beans.” And then he took a bag that he’d been carrying on his back, and put it over on my shoulder. And it was full of beans. He said,” Now I want you to take five beans, and drop ‘em right there in that row, pat it down with your hands, and step on it.” I done that.
 

 

And he said,” move over about a foot and take five more beans and put them down in the hole and do the same thing.” So I took about five more beans out, down ‘em down in the hole, And I patted it down with my hands, and I stepped on it, and he said, “That’s good. Now do it again.” So I done the same thing again, and he said, “You got it just right. Now you just keep on until you plant all these beans.”
 

And then he turned around and started back toward the house. I looked at him and said, “You not gonna stay here with me?” and he said, “No, why I need to stay here with you for? You know how to do it.” He went right on back. Lord! I ain’t never been so proud in my life! Why whenever I helped Ma, she was right there with me all the time. And she’d say, “Now just look at that living room that I asked you to dust! You ain’t done nothing except wipe the tops of things. Squat down and look at the rungs of that chair and see all that dust!” Or she’d say, “ Louise, I told you to sweep the whole yard and all you’ve done is just sweep right there in the middle. Now go back out there and sweep in the corners so it looks like something.” Or she’d say, “Stop pinchin’ that baby! I know good and well you’re doing that just so you don’t have to look after him.”

 

But here was Pa a telling me that I knew how to do something just as good as he did. And I was on cloud nine.  Well, I went along like he told me---I took five beans, put ‘em in the hole,  patted ‘em down, and I stepped on it---and I moved over about a foot----took five more beans, put ‘em down in the hole, and I patted it down and I stepped on it---And then I took five more beans, put ‘em in a hole, patted ‘em down and then I stepped on it----And that went on for about a half a row.
 

And then the sun had begun to shine down and it was hot and I was a beginnin’ to sweat and that bag was a cuttin’ in to my shoulder where the dirt was a getting between the strap and my skin. And the dirt was getting on my face. And it was running down all to the sweat on to my clothes.  And that bag was getting heavier, heavier, and heavier.
 

And I started puttin’ six little beans in a hole, and pattin ‘em down, and a little farther down, I stared puttin’ seven and eight little beans in a hole and pattin’ them down. And by the end of that row I was puttin’ half a hand full of beans in a hole and pattin’ them down.  And by the time I got the end of that third row, I just took that whole bag full of beans and emptied them all in that row, And I patted ‘em down and I stomped on ‘em just like that and then I turned and went back to the house.

 

Well, Pa was a sittin’ on the porch smokin’ his pipe, and he took his pipe out of his mouth and he said, “You all done plantin’?” And I said, “Yes, sir” There was a sort of a hard lump down in the bottom of my stomach and I thought that he was a gonna ask me about it, But he didn’t say no more. That hard lump of guilt stayed there a few days—kind of bothered me, but then I began to forget all about it and it went away.

 

And I hadn’t thought no more about them beans until about three weeks later.  One day Pa came a stomppin’ up on the porch at lunchtime and I could tell by the way he hit that porch that he was mad at somebody. He come in and sat down, and when he started sayin the blessing I thought that he was a mad at the Lord. But when lunch was over, he said, “Come here, Louise” And I knowed it wasn’t the Lord he was mad at.

 

He said, “Come with me” And we started back over toward that high field so fast I was a havin’ to run.  When we got there, he just pointed.  Well, it was easy enough to see what he was talking about. Cause right there at the beginnin’ of the row, there was five of the nicest bean plants on every hill. And we went on a little bit farther down and it was six bean plants on a hill, a little farther down it was seven or eight beans on hill, and then it got to be a dozen or so beans in a hill, and when you got over to the end of that third row, there was a whole jungle of bean plants.
 

And all of a sudden, that guilt that I thought had already dissolved and gone away, begun to come back,  And it started growin’ and swellin’ and it got all mixed up with a little self pity and a little re-morse and a little bit of what else it found down there and all of a sudden it just come a bustin’ out of my eyes and you ain’t never heard so much squallin’ in all the days of your life.
 

Well, Pa he didn’t say anything, he just reached over and pulled me up against that big old farmer leg of his, and he let me squall it out till he could talk some sense to me, Then he said, “Louise, there’s just one thing I want you to learn from this. No matter where you go, or what you do, the beans will always come up.” And do you know I found out later that he got that from the greatest teacher who ever lived. Because it was Jesus Christ himself who said,” What you sow, you gonna reap” The beans is gonna come up.

Pledge of Allegiance

There have been three versions of the Pledge of Allegiance since it was first written.  The original version titled “Salute to the Flag” and written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, read “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands:  one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Version two, as established by the National Flag Conferences of 1923 and 1924 read:  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands:  one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 

Version three, which stands today, is “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands:  one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  This version was signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1954.  At that time the “cold war” was raging between the U. S. and the Soviet Union, and the words were incorporated to emphasize that the Soviets were “Godless communists”.

In my opinion, the current version is the worst of the three and does a lot to support the maxim of Occam’s Razor; that is to say, the simplest solution is usually the best solution.  When the words, “under God” were added to the pledge in 1954, chaos (not to mention controversy) followed.  Some people said “one nation under God”, with no pause between “nation” and “under”, as the new version read, while other people said, “one nation, under God” with a pause at the comma.  Still other people said something in between.  Ever since the words “under God” were added to the pledge, every public recitation of it has been a hash.  As a result, a lot of people don’t know really what it says and don’t really give a you-know-what.

Moreover, the pledge as it now exists is an insult to Americans who are atheists.  I am not an atheist, but under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

My Engineering Courses

Here are links to the three continuing education courses for Professional Engineers that I have written.  Actually, they are links to the course Overviews, but once in an Overview, you can download the course material for free.  If you have enjoyed any of my blog posts, I think you might enjoy reading these courses. You have to purchase a course only if you want to take the quiz and get credit from the State:

Introduction to Water Towers --  http://www.pdhengineer.com/Course%20Web/Environmental%20Courses/EN-1007.htm

Case Studiees of Three Explosions and a Chemical Accident -- http://www.pdhengineer.com/Course%20Web/Failure%20Investigation%20Courses/F-3002.htm

Anatomy of a Waste Water Tank Explosion -- http://www.pdhengineer.com/Course%20Web/Failure%20Investigation%20Courses/F-1002.htm

My Life As an Engineering Course Writer

I was kind of forced into retirement, fired you might say, on the last day of the month of my 65^th birthday.  I continued to do some work for my former employer on a contract basis from time to time, but after awhile the work died out.  Following more than 18 months without any work, I decided to declare myself as an “Inactive” Professional Engineer (P. E.) to the Texas Board of Professional Engineers.  This meant that I could not legally practice as a P. E., but on the other hand I wouldn’t have to keep taking those infernal Continuing Education Program Professional Development Hour (PDH) courses for a cost of anywhere from about $300 a year to ten times that amount.

Then in March 2012, lo’ and behold, a job opportunity came along.  It involved a carbon-dioxide fatality at a McDonald’s restaurant.  I had already worked on several accidents involving carbon dioxide, in particular on a morbidly similar case involving double carbon-dioxide fatalities at another McDonald’s restaurant.  No one else in my former employer’s company knew much about carbon dioxide, and that’s why I caught the assignment.  When I told the attorney on the case that I was not an active P. E. and that, as such, I could not work for him until I got reactivated, he told me to get reactivated in a hurry.

I figured that the quickest way to get reactivated was by taking online courses, and I was right.  After some searching on the Internet, I found this website called www.pdhengineer.com, the pdh standing for Professional Development Hour.  I took several of their courses, and somewhere along the way, I decided, “I can write this kind of stuff.  I’ve been doing it for 40 years”.  Moreover, I thought, judging from the absence of any comments on my blog postings, apparently hardly anyone ever reads them, so why not write courses that some engineer might actually pay for?  After, if he (or she) is an engineer, then he (or she) will have to get their PDH’s somewhere, so I have somewhat of a semi-captive audience of potential clients.

Consequently, I applied to the website to be an author.  I qualified, naturally, and I wrote a little course worth one PDH titled “Introduction to Water Towers”.  This course is not about water cooling towers but rather about elevated tanks of potable water.  This was in May of 2012.  Next I wrote a course worth three PDH titled “Case Studies of Three Explosions and a Chemical Accident”.  Catchy title.  I wanted to call it “Boom, Boom, Boom, Splash!”, but the website editor wouldn’t approve of that title.  I am about to publish another course worth one PDH titled “Anatomy of a Waste Water Tank Explosion”.  I thought it would be pretty cool to say “anatomy” instead of “analysis” or “study” or something.  So far, I have sold five copies of the water tower course and six copies of the explosion &c course, and I have made $181.51 in royalties.

It is always a thrill when I open my email and see one from the website course Administrator with a message saying that someone (presumably an engineer, but not necessarily; it could be you) had purchased one of my courses.  This is all part of my get-rich-slow scheme.

Presidential Elections

Background Information

When the House elected John Quincy Adams in 1825, the political party system was in a state of flux, and no particular party was especially strong.  In fact, none of the Presidential contenders at the time even had any distinct party designation.  Andrew Jackson won far more popular votes, as well as more electoral votes, than any other candidate, but he did not win a majority of either.  Consequently, the election defaulted to the House, which, as stipulated by the Constitution, had to choose a President from the top three electoral vote winners.  Henry Clay was fourth place in electoral votes won and, therefore, was eliminated from the Electoral College

The President of the United States is not actually elected directly by the citizenry, but rather by a relatively small group of people known as electors.  Each state, as well as Washington, D. C., which is not a state, chooses its own new set of electors every time there is a Presidential election.  The electors from all the various states (and from Washington, D. C.) are referred to collectively as the Electoral College, although it obviously is not a college in the normal or conventional sense.  Indeed, the electors from all the different states (and Washington, D. C.) never even convene all together.

Instead, in December following any Presidential election, on a day set by law, the electors from each state assemble, usually in their respective state capitals, and cast their votes for President (and Vice President).  Either by custom or, in a few states, by law, the electors usually, but not always, vote for their respective political party's choices.

For several years after the Constitution became effective as the supreme law of the land in 1788, most of the electors were chosen by the state legislatures.  Thus, the general citizenry did not really have any influence in electing the President, except in the sense that the people elected their state legislators, who in turn chose state electors, who in turn elected the President.

After about 1800, more and more states began choosing their electors in popular elections, and today all the states (and Washington, D. C.) choose their electors by popular vote.

Thus, an American citizen who votes on Election Day does not actually vote for any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate.  Instead, the citizen, whether knowingly or not, votes for a slate of potential electors selected by the political party that nominated the candidates favored by the voting citizen.

Moreover, the slates of potential electors voted on are not selected by any national political party entity, but rather by the political party factions within the particular state in which the voting citizen resides, under the rules established by the particular state legislature.  Every political party in every state (and Washington, D. C.), independent of all the other states, may select a slate of potential Presidential electors.

Thus, each state (and Washington, D. C.) has a slate of Democratic electors and a slate of Republican electors, and possibly slates for third parties such as the Libertarians or other parties.  Therefore, considering only the Democrats and the Republicans, in every Presidential election, there are 102 different groups of potential electors -- a separate group for each party in every one of the 50 states, as well as for Washington, D. C.

Winner-Take-All Rules

All of the potential electors chosen by the party of the candidate who wins a plurality of a given state's popular votes (more votes than any other candidate), but not necessarily a majority (more than 50 percent), usually become that state's electors.  Thus, all the electors from any given state will usually be from the same political party.  Maine and Nebraska are presently the only states where electors can be from more than one party in any given election year.

Therefore, a candidate usually must win only a plurality of a state's popular votes to win all of the state's electoral votes.  This is true provided that all the state's electors subsequently vote for their party's choice in the following December.

Electoral Vote Splits

As said before, a state's electors usually vote for the candidate of their party's choice, but not always.  When the electors of a state do not all vote the same way, this is called an electoral "spilt."  Although there have been numerous splits in the past, they have all been too insignificant to alter the course of any election.  For example, in the Presidential election of 1976, which was won by Jimmy Carter, the state of Washington cast seven of its eight electoral votes for Carter's opponent Gerald Ford and one vote for Ronald Reagan.  This was the only electoral vote split in that election year.

Number of Electors

The United States Constitution decrees that each individual state shall appoint, in such a manner as each individual state legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of United States senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the United States Congress.

Every state is entitled to two Senators.  Because there are 50 states in the Union, the total number of senators is 100.

Under the Constitution as originally ratified, each state was entitled to a number of representatives not exceeding one representative for every 30,000 "persons" living in the state, but slaves were each counted as only 3/5 of a person, and native American Indians were not counted at all.  The fourteenth amendment, however, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, with all citizens counted equally with respect to representation in the House of Representatives.

As the United States population grew over time, the total number of representatives for the whole Union continued to grow also.  Ever since 1929, however, the total number of representatives for the Union as a whole has been fixed at 435, and the number entitled to any given state has been proportionate to that state's population relative to the population of the Union as a whole.  Therefore, the 50 states are collectively entitled to 535 electors (as a result of there being a total of 100 senators and 435 representatives).  Washington, D. C., although not a state, has since 1961 has been entitled to three electors, under the 23^rd amendment to the Constitution.  Therefore, the total number of electors for the Union as a whole is fixed at 538 (535 plus 3).

After a national census is taken at the turn of every decade, the number of representatives entitled to each of the states is redetermined.  Consequently, although the total numbers of representatives and electors is constant at 435 and 538, respectively, every ten years the numbers entitled to any given state may change if significant shifts have occurred in the state's population relative to that of the other states.

Every state is entitled to at least one Representative, no matter how small the state population might be.  Therefore, every state in the Union is entitled to at least three electors: one due to having at least one representative, and two more due to having two senators.  Reapportionment after the 2000 census resulted in there currently (2008) being seven states (and Washington D.C.) that each have only three electoral votes.  California has 55, which is far more than any other state in the Union.

Number of Electoral Votes Needed To Win an Election

As said before, only a plurality of a given state's popular vote is generally sufficient to win all of the state's electoral votes.  In sharp contradistinction, a majority of all the electoral votes that could be cast nationwide is needed to win the election by the Electoral College.  Because there are 538 electors nationwide, an Electoral College majority equates to 270 or more electoral votes.  In the event that no candidate could win an electoral vote majority, the United States Congress would determine the outcome of the election.  This has happened only twice in United States history. 

Under the original Constitution, each elector cast two electoral votes on the same ballot.  The candidate with the greatest number of votes, if that number constituted a majority, became President, and the candidate in second place became Vice President.  The 12^th amendment, however, ratified in 1804, changed the procedure.  Under the revised rules, each elector casts one vote for President on one ballot and one vote for Vice President on a separate ballot.  A candidate who wins a majority of votes on the Presidential ballot is elected President, and a candidate who wins a majority of votes on the Vice-Presidential ballot is elected Vice President.

 Winning the Election without an Electoral Vote Majority

In the event that no Presidential candidate could win an electoral vote majority, the House of Representatives would choose a President from the top three Presidential contenders.  In analogous fashion, if no Vice-Presidential candidate could win an electoral majority, the Senate would choose a Vice President from the top two Vice-Presidential contenders.  In both chambers of Congress (the House and the Senate), each state would be entitled to only one vote, irrespective of the state's population or its electoral vote entitlement. Thus, for example, California and Wyoming would each have one vote, despite California being far more populous.

Washington, D. C., because it is not a state, would not be allowed to vote in this stage of an election, notwithstanding that Washington, D. C.'s electoral vote (or abstinence from voting) would have contributed to the election's having defaulted to the Congress in the first place.

For any candidate to be elected by the House or Senate to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, respectively, at least two-thirds of the states in the relevant chamber of Congress would have to vote.  This is to say that two-thirds of the states would constitute a quorum in either chamber.  Given that there are currently 50 states, a present-day quorum would comprise at least 34 states.

In addition, for any candidate to be elected by the House or Senate to the Presidency or Vice Presidency, respectively, a majority of all states would be necessary to a choice. Thus, because there are 50 states, a candidate would have to win at least 26 state votes in the relevant chamber to be elected.

Historical Rarities

Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were the only two Presidents ever elected by the House of Representatives.  The House elected Jefferson in 1801, when most states still allowed their legislators to choose electors and when the Electoral College still voted for President and Vice president on the same ballot.  Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in electoral votes, and the House could not decide between the two men until the 36th House ballot.  The voting went on so long that there was concern that a President would not be elected before inauguration day.  This prolonged election was what led to the aforementioned 12^th amendment that changed the voting rules of the Electoral College.

Clay, being a stanch political rival of Jackson's, threw his support in the House to Adams, who, as a direct result of Clay's support, was elected.  Thus, history recorded the irony of the least successful Presidential candidate of the election of 1824 (Clay) having been ultimately responsible for determining who would be President (Adams).

Criticism of the Electoral College

It is popular to criticize the Electoral College process.  Many people argue that it is an outmoded, unfair system, created when communications were slow and it was unwieldy to base a Presidential election on the popular vote.

Critics of the Electoral College process argue that under this system a candidate can be elected with less than a majority of the popular votes cast and, even worse, can be elected with fewer popular votes than another candidate.  Both of these statements are true.  In fact, there have been numerous Presidents elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.  The list includes, among others, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.  Moreover, neither John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, nor George W. Bush (in his first election) won the majority of the popular vote.  In fact, John Quincy Adams won the Presidency with less than 31 percent of the popular vote.

 
Ironically, proponents of the Electoral College often likewise cite such elections as reasons for keeping the Electoral College, rather than for getting rid of it.  They argue that if every president had to win a majority of the popular vote, runoff elections would frequently be required, thereby lengthening the Presidential election process and potentially jeopardizing the nation's security during the transition of power from one administration to the next.

Seldom recognized by the public is that Electoral College, like the bicameral legislature, was the result of compromises without which the Constitution would never have been adopted.  The various states did not want to give up their individual sovereignties; in particular, the small states did not want to be pushed around by the larger states, and rural dwellers did not want to be overwhelmed by the dense populations of the cities.

The Senate was created as a result of these opposing viewpoints. Every state has two senators, regardless of the population or size of the state.  On the other hand, the House was created to provide representation proportionate to a state's population.  The Electoral College embodies both aspects of the bicameral legislature in that every state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the sum of the number of its senators and representatives.

A powerful argument in favor of the Electoral College process is that, despite its shortcomings, it guarantees that nobody can be elected President absent support of the majority representation of the people, which is not necessarily to say a majority of the popular vote.

The United States, notwithstanding notions to the contrary, is not a democracy.  Rather, it is a democratic republic.  In a democracy everybody gets to vote on every issue.  In a democratic republic, people elect other people to represent them on the issues.

Thus, the people elect their state legislators, who in turn select slates of potential state electors.  Then, the people vote on whom among the potential electors will be the actual electors.  The electors in turn vote for President.  If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election defaults to the House of Representatives, the people elect the members of which.  And, in the House, no candidate can win the Presidency without a majority of state votes.  Therefore, by whatever route a person is elected President, the election is won by a majority vote of the persons who, however indirectly, represent the majority of the voting public of the United States.

Development of the Two-Party Political System

For more than 165 years, two political parties have dominated United States Presidential politics, although not always the same two parties.  From about 1828 to the late 1850s, the two dominating parties were the Democrats and the Whigs, with the Democrats having been much the stronger of the two parties.  From the 1860 to the present, the two main parties have been the Democrats and the Republicans, with the balance of power swinging back and forth.

The two-party political system has become so interwoven in our government that the power of the system is exceeded only by the Constitution itself.  Moreover, the synergism of the two-party system together with the Constitution has imparted to the office of President a mystique that probably was never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution and that, most likely, has been crucial to the long-term stability of our government.

This phenomenon is especially significant, because the Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of political parties.  As a matter of fact, George Washington, who headed the Constitutional Convention, originally opposed their development, as did many other political leaders of the time.  Nevertheless, common interests inevitably brought different groups of people together to form political parties, and had they not been formed, the Constitution would probably have never come about, let alone have been so enduring.

Political parties did not just spring forth from whole cloth, and it is difficult to pin down exactly when any given party began or ended.  The earliest political parties in America were probably the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.  These parties, however, were not really political parties in exactly the same sense that parties are today.  Present-day political parties debate how the nation should be governed under a Constitution that has long since been adopted.  In clear contradistinction, the fundamental issue that was originally disputed between the Federalist party and the Anti-Federalist party was whether the Constitution should be adopted in the first place.  The Federalists favored adoption, or ratification, of the Constitution, whereas the Anti-Federalists opposed its ratification.

The opposing viewpoints from which the Constitution emerged no doubt contributed to its longevity, as the endurance of the Constitution rests in part on a great paradox.  On one hand, state loyalties prompted the framers of the Constitution to leave many important powers to the states.  On the other hand, the framers deliberately wrote the Constitution in such general terms that certain powers could be retrieved from the states when the advance of industry and changes in international relations made it necessary to wield these powers on a national level.

That the Constitution was ever adopted is as amazing as it was fortunate for the American people.  The Revolution freed the American states from English rule but did not forge a nation.  Notwithstanding that the colonists from the various states had fought in a common cause, they still thought of themselves not primarily as Americans, but rather as citizens of individual states.  This feeling was embodied in the loose form of government that existed prior to the Constitution.

Through most of the Revolution, the sole document binding the states was the Declaration of Independence.  Although in 1775, Benjamin Franklin drafted the first "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," they did not go into effect (after much debate and numerous changes) until March 1781, only seven months before the British surrendered (at Yorktown, Virginia).  The Articles gave the new government many apparent powers but kept it weak in key areas.  For example, Congress (which was then a single- chambered legislature) could make war but could not levy taxes to pay for it.  Many of the important Congressional powers could be exercised only with the consent of nine of the thirteen states that were then united.  Moreover, the Articles could be amended only after Congress and every state legislature agreed.

Many leading Americans wondered whether a permanent union was particularly desirable and whether it was even plausible to organize so much territory under one government.  Frictions arose over interstate commerce, regional interests, and opposing claims to the western domain.

Nonetheless, the American states had shared many common experiences and were facing common problems.  At the very least, the states had a common debt to pay off, inherited from the Revolution.  As the bonds of the Articles continued to unravel, farseeing leaders increased the pressure to provide a more stable system on government.  Yet, many were loath to substitute an altogether new document for the Articles.

Consequently, when the states finally agreed to hold the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the avowed purpose was only to amend the Articles.  Only after the delegates convened did they decide to draft the Constitution, and even so it was very controversial.  Of the 55 delegates who took part in the deliberations, only 42 stayed to the end, and only 39 signed the document that finally emerged in September 1987.  Ratification by three-quarters (nine) of the states was the final step required to make the Constitution effective.

The ratification process went along smoothly at first.  As the number of state ratifications passed the halfway mark, however, the Anti-Federalists began to gain strength, and many and bitter controversies arose in the populace and in the legislatures of the states that had not yet ratified the new document.  It did not become effective until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document.

Virginia ratified it later the same month, and New York the month after, but neither state was willing to do so until being promised that the Constitution would be amended with the Bill of Rights, which is the name given to the first ten amendments.  Rhode Island and North Carolina were both so hostile to the Constitution that they did not join the Union until after the new government was already in operation.  North Carolina held out until November 1789.  Rhode Island, at the time considered as having always been reluctant to participate in interstate efforts, held out until May 1790.  Even then, Rhode Island's decision to ratify the Constitution was made by a very narrow margin.

Given that the Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution, it is not surprising that the party died within a few years after the Constitution was ratified.  The issue of the Constitution, however, still divided the country, and during the first years of the new government, factional leaders worked to strengthen their positions and mobilize their supporters.

The Federalist party, being the political party responsible for the new government's existence, at first enjoyed several advantages.  For example, they had a clear program of strong central government.  Further, they had control of the army and the willingness to use it; to wit, the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when 15,000 federal troops subdued Pennsylvania farmers who protested a new tax on distilled spirits.  Most importantly, the Federalists had in Alexander Hamilton a leader who was brilliant, resourceful, energetic, and uncompromising.

A democratic republic, however, does not long tolerate only one party in power, especially a party of elitists, which is exactly how many of the poorer, less well educated, and less fortunate people viewed the Federalists.  It did not take the opposition very long to join ranks in support of Thomas Jefferson, an ardent foe of Hamilton and the strong central government for which Hamilton stood.  In the early 1790s, as the power of the Anti-Federalists waned, Jefferson led the formation of the Democratic-Republican party.  This was the first major political party born under Constitutional rule.  The new party wrested the White House from the Federalists in 1801, when the House of Representatives, in that long-drawn out election that eventually led to the 12^th amendment, elected Jefferson President, after no candidate succeeded in winning an electoral vote majority.

The decline of the Federalist party probably began, in large part, with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.  This enormous expansion of United States territory helped destroy the controlling influence of New England, where the strength of the Federalist party was rooted.  The War of 1812 accelerated the process of decline, and the Federalists were but a memory by about 1816.  For the next eight years Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans held sway.  This period was the first and last time in our history to date during which the United States operated under a one-party political system.  It was known as the "period of good feelings." Ironically, the absence of a second party probably contributed to complacency on the part of the Democratic-Republicans and, consequently, the demise of the party.  Thus, as said before, in the election of 1824, no major Presidential contender was affiliated with any major party, and the result was the second and last time in our history to date that the election defaulted to the House of Representatives.

When the House elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson 1825, the outrage of Jackson's supporters led to the formation of the Democratic party, which is the oldest existing political party in the United States.  The short-lived (ten years) National Republican party was formed about the same time, but never won the Presidency.  The Whig party was also formed about the same time and lasted until the outbreak of the Civil war, but the Whigs never united sufficiently, and from 1828, when Jackson won the Presidency, until 1860, the Democrats beat the Whigs in all but two elections (1840 and 1848).

Around 1854 the Republican party emerged, and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President.  The Civil War put the Republicans solidly in power, and, consequently, from 1860 through 1928 they won 14 of the 18 Presidential elections.  In 1932, however, during the Great Depression following the stock market crash of 1929, Franklin D. Roosevelt won for the Democrats.  Twenty-four years then passed before Dwight Eisenhower won for the Republicans in 1952.  He served two terms and retired.  Democrats won the Presidency in 1960 (John Kennedy), 1964 (Lyndon Johnson), and 1976 (Jimmy Carter), but Republicans (Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush) occupied the White House for 20 of the 24 years from 1969 until 1993, when Bill Clinton won for the Democrats.  In 2000, George W. Bush, the son of George H. W. Bush, won and served two terms.  Incidentally, George W. Bush is only one of two Presidents in history whose father was also a President, the other being John Quincy Adams.  In the election of 2008, Republican candidate John McCain, a Senator and Vietnam War, lost to Democrat Barack Obama, also a Senator and the first black person in history to be elected President.  2008 also marked the first time since 1960 when a Senator won the Presidency (the last one being John Kennedy).

Thus, ever since its early history, United States Presidential politics have been dominated by two political parties:  first the Federalists and Anti-Federalists; then the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans; next the Democrats and the Whigs; and, most significantly, the Democrats and the Republicans.  For more than 130 years, the Presidency has shifted back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans for relatively long periods of time on each swing.  Excepting the elections of 1840 and 1848, either a Democrat or a Republican has won every Presidential election since 1824.

Third Parties

The two-party political system is so entrenched in America today that all parties other than the Democrats and the Republicans are referred to as "third parties."  There are and have been numerous third parties in the United States, but no third party candidate has ever won a Presidential election.  Indeed, none has even come close to winning.

On the other hand, third parties potentially can influence, and arguably have influenced, the outcomes of Presidential elections, by drawing votes away from the candidates of the two major parties.  Also, third parties influence the positions and policies of the major parties.  By drawing public attention to various issues, third parties often force major party candidates to modify their positions, so as to prevent losing votes to the third party candidates.

Third parties are of several different types, depending on their origins and objectives.  Some third parties are groups that have broken away from major parties.  Some third parties are what are known as "single-issue" parties; for example, the Prohibition Party, formed in 1869, opposes alcoholic beverages.  Some third parties seek to change the basic form of our government, for example, the Communist Party.  Some third parties support broad programs of change and try to gain favor across a wide spectrum of the citizenry.  This type of third party is the most likely some day to displace either the Democrats or the Republicans as one of the major two parties in the country. The most successful third-party candidates in American history were Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette, and George Wallace.

Roosevelt, as a Republican, won the election of 1904, but in 1912 he ran as a candidate of the Progressive party, which comprised a group that had broken away from the Republican party.  As the Progressive party nominee in 1912, Roosevelt won more than 27 percent of the popular vote, and he also won 88 electoral votes.

In 1924 the Progressive party nominee was Robert LaFollette, who won almost 17 percent of the popular vote but only 13 electoral votes.

In contrast, George Wallace, a Governor of Alabama, won less than 14 percent of the popular vote as an American Independent nominee in 1968, but he carried five states and won 46 electoral votes, second only to Theodore Roosevelt among the ranks of third-party candidates.

In 1992, a conservative Texas billionaire and businessman, H. Ross Perot, representing no political party, ran for President against incumbent Republican George Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton, then the Governor of Arkansas.  Perot won more than 17 percent of the popular vote, but his support was so widely dispersed across the country that he did not carry a single state and, consequently, won no electoral votes.  He attracted votes away from both of the major party candidates, and it was a matter of debate as to whether he hurt Bush or Clinton more.  Clinton won the election with an electoral landslide but only 43 percent of the popular vote.

It was generally agreed that Perot's 1992 candidacy pressured both the major parties into political concessions that might otherwise not have been made.  Many political analysts argued that Perot's showing was less indicative of support for him than it was dissatisfaction with both Bush and Clinton.

The result of Ross Perot's foray into Presidential politics – 17 percent of the popular vote but no electoral votes – clearly illustrates how deeply rooted the two-party political system is in America.  This system, in conjunction with the Electoral College process as changed by the 12th amendment in 1804, virtually guarantees that nobody will be elected President who is not a nominee of one of the two dominant parties, which for more than a century have been the Republicans and the Democrats.

Moreover, unless a third party candidate can win enough electoral votes to throw the election into the Congress, it is a virtual certainty that the President and Vice President during any given term of office will always be nominees of the same party.  It is theoretically and legally possible to be otherwise, but extremely unlikely.  In the unlikely event that the election did default to the Congress, the party affiliation of the President and Vice president would likely depend on the relative strength of the different parties in the House and the Senate, respectively, on a state-by-state basis.  That is to say, each state would have only one vote, irrespective of its population.

A Table for Four

A few years ago, Elaine and I took a short trip to Las Vegas.  We stayed downtown, not on the Strip.  I don’t know if it was the time of year or where we stayed, or what, but there were crowds of people everywhere.  Long lines were ubiquitous.   One morning we walked out of the hotel hoping to find somewhere we could get in for breakfast.  We didn’t want to eat at the hotel, but we were definitely hungry.  We walked around for about fifteen minutes, and then we sighted a casino that advertised a restaurant in the basement.  We thought it was worth a try and went inside, but, no real surprise to us, there was a line of about a hundred people, mostly couples, and a few groups of three or four.   We sighed to ourselves and took our place at the back of the line.  It continued to grow behind us, and it was moving slowly. 

After a little while, the hostess called out that she had a table for four available.  I instantly turned around to the couple behind us and asked, “Say, would y’all like to have breakfast with us?”  They were a little surprised, but nonetheless replied in the affirmative without delay, so I held up my hand and called out to the hostess that we were a party of four. 

You cannot imagine the indignation of several people in the line, when the hostess signaled for us to come on up.  Someone cried out, “They weren’t together!  They don’t even know each other.”  Another yelled, “Hey, that’s not fair!”  And so on, the rumbling continued, but the hostess just smiled at them and said something like we looked like a foursome to her.  She took us right on in and seated us at a nicely located table.  I could swear that, as we were leaving the line to go eat, I heard someone else yell, “New foursome here!”  (Ah, ha!)

We and our new companions introduced ourselves to each other and began talking just as easy as pie.  We ordered our food, which turned out to be very tasty by the way, and we had a very satisfying conversation with this couple.  I am ashamed to say that we have forgotten their names, but I do remember that they lived in Waxahachie, Texas.  We had some fun laughing at the people who complained.