Volusia County Irregularities and Howard Phillips

[Kenneth Katkin]

Michael R. Masinter wrote:

>4.  There is also a problem in Volusia County.  Among the minor candidates
>who appeared on the Florida ballot, Phillips, said to be a socialist,
>received 4280 votes statewide. Of that total, 2927 came from Volusia
>County.  The Phillips total in Volusia County exceeds the combined total
>of Nader and Buchanan for that county and dwarfs his total in every other
>county. Nobody has offered any explanation for how a candidate who is
>unknown outside his immediate family and a few diehard socialist party
>members polled so well in one county.

I don't know anything about Volusia County, but Howard Phillips of the
"Constitution Party" (until recently the "U.S. Taxpayers Party") is no
socialist.  Mr. Phillips's campaign bio states that he has been "in the
vanguard of efforts to terminate Federal subsidies to ideological activist
groups under the banner of 'defunding the Left.'  Other Conservative Caucus
campaigns have involved opposition to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization,
support for a national version of California's Proposition 187 (to end
mandated subsidies for illegal aliens), as well as continuing efforts to
oppose socialized medicine, abortion, and special rights for homosexuals."
http://www.constitutionparty.com/howard_phillips_biography.htm
On gun control, Mr. Phillips believes we should "control the guns of the
federal gestapo."
http://www.constitutionparty.com/lets_take_back_america.htm.
Mr Phillips accuses Pat Buchanan of being too open minded: he objects to
Buchanan's refusal to "commit to appointing only pro-life judges to Federal
Courts other than the Supreme Court" and to Buchanan's promise that a
"Buchanan administration would not be made up of only those who hold a firm
constitutional point of view, but would be composed of people from across the
political spectrum, Democrats, Republicans and others, etc."
http://www.constitutionparty.com/why_i_cannot_support_pat_buchanan.htm

Interestingly, the Constitution Party platform takes a position on the
Electoral College!  It says:

"Although the Constitution does not require the states to adhere to any
specific manner in electing these electors or how they cast their votes, it
suggests, by its wording, that prominent individuals from each congressional
district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as
electors that represent that district. Under this arrangement, a voter would
vote for three individuals, one to represent his district and two "at large"
representatives to represent his state. These electors, in turn, would then
carefully and deliberately select the candidate for president. Under this
system each congressional district could, in essence, select a different
candidate. The candidate with the most electors nationwide would become the
next president.

"This was the general procedure used until the 1830's, at which time all the
states, except for South Carolina, changed to a 'general ticket.'

"The 'general ticket' system is still in use today. Inherently, it causes
corruption by the inequitable transfer of power from congressional districts
to the states and large cities at the expense of rural communities. Similarly,
power can be shifted inequitably to minorities and special interest groups.

"The Constitution Party, therefore, proposes legislation to eliminate the
'general ticket' system and return to the procedure intended by the Framers."
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html#Eleccollege




Prof. Kenneth Katkin
561 Nunn Hall
Salmon P. Chase College of Law
Northern Kentucky University
Highlands Heights, KY 41099
859-572-5861
katkink at nku.edu