February 25
Okay. I still have any people that didn't get the
chart on conditions of a democratic government. Everybody
has got the chart on conditions of a democratic
government? Okay. The interfaces we didn't complete. How
far did we go with them? We went up to -- did we go down
to bicameral -- um, Karen, when you send it by e-mail,
you don't need to stick it in my box in written form too.
I thought maybe A 0 L would hold it like they were
talking about, so just to be safe. You scared her on A 0
L, well not all you people, Paul scared her. If you don't
get the note back then you should ask -- once in a while
I goof up like one o'clock at night. A 0 L is always
busy, so it scares me. If you don't get a notice back
within a day, contact me. just don't want you wasting
paper especially colored ink.
Any other questions'.) Or procedural issues? Then 1
would like to go to my usual task of trying to get you to
get an A in the class. The next question on the interface
was to deal with positives and negatives of a various
list of things including the first one which says
bicameral legislature. 1 use that to a very important
factor for pushing in taking an exam and doing well and
that is reading the question carefully and responding to
the question. One of the rules I'm going to give you is
that more problems get a decent grade is because they
don't read the question carefully they often read into it
or they don't read it in a
wide range. They narrow it through what I would call
tunnel vision with blinders on and that can be extremely
dangerous in referring to exams. Now note, I am well
aware that most of you are here because it's a required
course. I do my job as best I can without giving you
straight A's because we set standards to try and let you
know that you can do it, but once again, only about a few
of you seem to be able to analyze these things in that
light. Um, is there anybody in this class who and I said
how would you approach the word democracy said look at
the chart? But the fact is that those are the kinds of
things that you got to get through our conditioning that
you've been sitting with for all these years of having
people do things for you. Your parents spoiling you like
I do my kids.
So, what's the issue? The issue is why it's a
bicameral legislature" Who would like to define it for
me? Not too tough a question. The first thing would-I
would do is define it. Otherwise you couldn't answer it.
So what is it? Cowards. That's an easy one. Everybody's
got that one right. isn't it just made up of two houses?
Yeah. Two separate houses. Bicamerals. Two houses. What's
unicameral? One house. But of course you have to answer
that and of course if you didn't know what a bicameral
legislature was you couldn't answer it without looking
through the dictionary.

Then we have to get to the question that follows

next.

well what's positive and negative? You better think
about it a little. So a little critical thinking here.
Where is there a bicameral legislature? In the United
States? Where? In this classroom? In Washington D.C.
What about the state of Washington? Yeah, probably.
Yeah. So both were actually accurate, you're perfectly
right. Well of course you few I would have hassled you,
but yes both Washington D.C. And the state of Washington
have bicameral legislatures.
In Washington D.C. it is called the House and the
Senate and we use the term for both houses, Congress. In
the states we don't call them a Congress. In the states
we call them a

legislature. A bicameral legislature. Only one state does

not have a bicameral legislature and that's Nebraska.
Don't ask me why. I'm not even sure where Nebraska is.
I'm not sure it exists. What do they have? They have
unicameral.
Did you hear Jessie Ventura insulted the Irish? I
think he's still a wrestler. But as a wrestler -- what's
the name of the city there? Saint Paul? Very poor street
numbered you can't find your way around the streets, make
no sense and it's because the Irish settled there. And
man, you don't talk about Irish people.
What are the two houses on the state level? What is
the two -- anybody know what the two houses in California
are? Well, state senate and a senate assembly. Right.
Most states it's a senate and assembly. I won't say all
because
I don't know. For the ninety -- for the 64 thousand
dollar question, who is your state senator from this
area? No, Stark is the congressman, right? That means he
belongs to the House of Reps? States, the state senator.
Boxer is a federal senator. it's not Pigerora, Liz
Figora? -- okay, what is -- who is the state assemblyman
from this district? Dutra. Now you've seen the realty
signs around? That's Dutra. All right.
Where else is there a bicameral legislature? in
Britain. Yeah and what are the two houses called? House
of Laws and the House of Commons. So, we've got a lot of
bicameral legislature, so now answer the question. What -
is a positive attribute of a bicameral legislature?
Separation of power at least checks and balances. Yeah
could be. Why? Because you always have a second opinion
basically? Or a first. You have two different
deliberating bodies which means that perhaps the
legislature will be examining more carefully and that is
an excellent answer to the question. However looking at
most of your papers you didn't put that down. What did
you put down for the positive attribute of a separation
of powers without -- many of you put down that it gives
the states representatives and it gives the people
representatives and so the people have representatives
and the house and the state has the representative in the
senate to words to that effect. That is absolutely
incorrect; why? Because I didn't ask you
about the federal legislature in Washington. I asked you
the positive attributes of a bicameral legislature. I
didn't say our Washington federal bicameral legislature
and when you answer a question incorrectly. All right. I
don't grade the interfaces But when you answer a question
like that on the exam you're going to lose points because
you're not reading the question. Following me? And you
have to be extremely cautious. Somehow or other we have
this image when we talk politics it only pertains to
Washington and the president. Which may explain why
people vote for on federal than state. Politics includes
everything from local on up. And you know, I really do
get very upset. It happens every semester when somebody
talks about why we're not democratic because we elect
people through the electoral college. Who do we elect to
the electoral college. Just the president and vice
president. They're the only two people elected through
the electoral college. Who were elected by the people?
Thousands. Okay only the president -- I don't think we
are democratic at all -- I don't think we really have a
say because we have an electoral college. Well, you know,
but that has nothing to do with the whole country. it has
to do with the president of the United States. So you'd
have to explain it further.
What is a negative attribute of a bicameral
legislature? Checks and balances. Well that's
positive. Why would that be negative? Because if you
want to get
something passed you have to bribe two sets of people?
Why else might that be negative? Notice I'm not arguing
you're wrong. Another negative reason for the bicameral
legislature? The pain is well taken. Why? What's another
negative attribute of it? A lot of people going after
they're own personal states -- the big picture or their
own regions or -- they're own constituents' goals? I
think the easiest response is that it's time consuming
most of the time. When you have to go through two bodies
rather than one, it takes more time generally. Not
always, but general. And, therefore, that might be
needed rapidly may take quite awhile. Okay.
We now move onto that one area that I absolutely hate
lecturing on; the electoral college. Or talking about it
more than I used to, well maybe not more -- I think in
all my experience of teaching the thing that I hate most
or trying to explain was the international time zone. And
why we lost a day or gained a day. I'm still not sure I
can do that. I used to have to bring a globe in and, God,
it's terrible. Why is it now Priday in Xorea? And do we
lose a day or do we gain a day? Are we a day older if we
go to Xorea and have we lost a day of our life? Just
think of all that. Maybe Einstein's theory of relativity
can explain that crap. I have trouble.
The electoral college ain't much simpler. You'll
understand it better and more so more specifically
maybe
you'll understand why I'm going to open that door -- or
is it cold in here? I feel warm. I got to go do my
business man thing down at the Santa Clara convention
center, so I have to look respectable. You know me for
what I really am, non respectable.
The electoral college was a strange compromise set up
by the framers of the constitution. Does any other
country have an electoral college? There have been
countries that have copied us, but not kept it. And some
countries that have electoral colleges but they don't
work the same. It's not important because most of us
never think of another country with it. I think Brazil's
congress the legislature elect the president. Which is
sort of the like prime minister situation. So when you
asked yourself where is there an electoral college, the
answer is in the United States. When you defined it, how
would you define it? Sit here and we're all talking about
it. How do you define it if it were a five point question
on the mid term? How would you define? Simple as that.
You would -- people elect the president. if you don't say
president and vice president I won't take any points off,
but you could be -- but it is the group of people who
elect the president and the vice president of the United
States and that's all you need to say. Do we then not
elect the president of the United States? Well basically
yes. We don't. It is not a democratically vote. If it
were, we would be voting
directly. But we vote representatives to vote the law for
US. So maybe it's not anybody undemocratic then the house
of reps or the house to the senate. Actually we elect them
directly, but they're making the laws for us. It used to
be
that we elected members of state legislature and the
members
of state legislature and they elected the senators, but
in
1913, that was changed. So why did the framers set up the
strange electoral college system where -- does anybody
know
how many people elect the president today? 438 people -
I'm sorry. 538 people only get to vote. 538 people get to
vote for president only. Am I saying that you don't vote
for president at all? Legally, yes. You don't vote for
president. Who do you vote for? The electors who then
vote
for president. So what is that saying? Don't you see the
name of the president of the -- the candidate? No.
Actually you are voting for people who were going to vote
for that person. And they haven't put their names on the
ballot. You actually aren't voting for the person whose
names is on there.
usually.
Now, was that the way it was originally? Yeah. More
or less. However, let's explain it further. The framers
of the Constitution almost as a body believed that the
people could not participate in politics because they
didn't know very well what was good for the country, no
less for themselves. And so the attitude basically was to
elect

But you don't know who they
are
somebody that knew better than you, what was good for
you. And more specifically, one, you could elect
somebody to the house of reps because area and your
money need be representing you the reason was to
represent the whole country and you might not know who
was best for the whole country, but people in your
community who knew politics would probably know more
about what person would function best for your community
in the whole country as president. And could get elected
president.
So they set up a strange indirect system to avoid
mobocracy. They used synonymous as democracy. They
believed. Was when they people ruled through passion
rather than reason. They said the same about democracy.
It create irrational election. And therefore, we allow
the emotion on the local level because it will be less of
it but they would be elected by people who would know in
their states who was best throughout the whole thirteen
states. Let's say Fremont, the city, most of you live in,
not all, was a state and it's population by the way is
probably larger than -- of the states we have 185,000
people in the city of Fremont, um, not many states have
them. Maybe Pennsylvania and New York and Virginia the
largest city at the time the constitution was written was
Philadelphia. And it had a population of 35,000 people
that was the largest city. Now 35,000 is probably -- I'm
not even sure of Union city is probably bigger probably
more like 50,000. Pleasanton maybe
25? 56,000? Is it? So you know, it's hard to even find a
city today with 35,000 people. The city of Boston, the
city that helped inspired the revolution with the Tea
Party and the massacre had a population of 10,000 people;
that's the population of Ohlone college. It's time for an
Ohlone college massacre. No, I do that when I give you
your grades. Got to watch what you say now a days. All
right. So in Fremont on the ballot, you'd see the names
of the people who knew best, what was good for the
country because they were known in politics. Their names
would appear on the ballot. I think that's the names. Who
were these people? City council. Morrison is the mayor.
So these are the people who would know best what was good
for the country.
All right. So now you have to choose who you're going
to vote for. Well, you look at the ballot and you say who
were you going to vote for? Kirshner? Well Kershner will
vote for Kershner, but I'm not sure about Morrison. They
don't tell you, do they? Because you knew that they knew
better than you, right? Well Americans don't buy that.
You know, we want to know who people are voting for and
so very soon if not immediately, they began to insist on
the ballot the people tell you who they were going to
vote for. So, on the ballot we have Morrison said held
vote for Jefferson. Wasserman says held vote for Madison.
Zlotnik says she'll vote for Betsy Ross. Pierce said
he'll vote for King George the Third. Ziegler. Well, you
know, I said so. So who
were you going to vote for? Well? Some of you vote for
Washington, but you're not voting for Washington. We
don't even have Washington up there? You don't get the
vote for Washington for first president none of these
people are going to vote for Washington. Obviously, times
have changed. Okay so let's get realistic. Let's go to
the year 2000. They say there are 123 people whether to
run for president. I'm not going to list 123. I'm going
to attempt to be realistic.
In the democratic party who will probably be the
candidate? Gore. Bradely will challenge him but -- Dan
Quale is he going to run, but I don't think he's got a
chance of getting the nomination. Who probably will if he
runs? Bush is leading by far. In fact, the polls show Bush
leading Gore in California which is strongly
democratically. We're talking George Bush Junior fourth
fifth or sixth. I don't know. And of course we'll probably
see, Ross Perot. So these are people going to run for
president in the year 2000.
Let's take California. How many people get to vote
for president in California? I said there was 538 and
there are 54 who get to vote. 54 only. Those are the
electors. How do they term the number? They do that based
on the House of Representative California they're not the
same. They're not supposed to be the same but the
amendment is the same. There are 52 members of house of
reps, so we get 52 plus two
senators. So we get 54. So California has 54 electors out
of the how many did I say were there? 538. We get ten
percent, yeah. Basically. To get an elected president we
need an actual majority, so California votes since it is win
or take all, whoever wins California gets twenty percent of
the number of votes to be president. Does it therefore make
sense to go to Alaska with three votes? I ain't going to
spend my money in Alaska when I can get 54 votes in
California which let's you know why candidates come to
California. And don't go to Hawaii or Alaska as nice as
it's supposed to be there, I suppose. So, I said 54 people
vote. And the person who wins the vote, their people vote.
Their people. Does that mean that there are more than 54
electors? It sure does. Gore has 54 people Bush has 54
Perot 54 people. Um, with what do we got here? Okay we
have a ballot here. How are they chosen? Well 54 people for
Bush or Gore will probably be chosen by the political party
after the convention. These are people whose only job it is
to vote for president if their candidate wins. They are
being rewarded because they have work hard in the party or
giving a lot of money. It's a reward. At the -- the ones
that win get to go to Sacramento in mid-December to vote for
president. So the actual election takes place in mid
December and then it is counted on January third in front of
the House and Senate. The official count. Is that making
any sense? I see some strange looks out there. I thought it
was pretty simple.
So, the democratic party and Gore select 54 people they
figure will vote for him. Bush and the republican party select
four people that will vote for him. Perot will select 54 people
that would vote for him it's itself. On the ballot today if they
want to put down the names of people to vote we would have to
put if they had four candidates there 216 names is that right?
Now that's a long ballot, so when you vote for Bush, or Gore who
were you voting for? Your voting for 51 -- 54 of their bodies or
friends who say they're going to vote for you. When the time
comes. Do they have to? In most states, no. The Supreme Court
did rule that it was legal for the political parties to mandate
and this is recent, that the electors voting for the president,
however most states do not mandate it. Most parties did not.
Leaving them the option of not voting for the person they said
they were going to vote for. Will they change their vote then?
No. Why? Because they are men and women of honor. They will get
their ass kicked out of the party. They will embarrass
themselves. Has it ever happened? Yes. It has. A number of
times. Last time it happen was ten years ago in 1998. That's ten
years ago. 1988. Boy, I'm getting older here. I am now that
we're in the year 2008. I'll blink my eyes and I'll be saying
this. In the year 1988, an elector from West Virginia who was
schedule to vote for Dukakis Michael
instead voted for his vice president candidate Benson she
wanted to prove how stupid the college is if I really
thought about it, I would have voted for Kitty.
In 1976, a elector from Oregon who was suppose to vote for
Ronald Reagan -- I'm sorry not -- who was supposed to vote for
Gerald Ford. So it has happened. Has it effected the outcome?
As I said, it is unlikely that it would. What is more the
question is the winner take all and every state but maybe it is
a winner take all primary. Meaning, the person who gets one
more vote in California will get all their 54 people to vote.
So, if Gore gets 7 million votes and Bush gets 6,999,999 99.
Perot gets a hundred thousand. Kirshner gets one. Okay. He has
to vote for himself. All 54 of whose people vote? Gore. Bush
gets no votes. Be in the electoral college when they meet in
December in Sacramento. Any questions so far?
How would you go about changing that? You'd have to change
the constitution. The question I'm going to pose in a little
why is why hasn't it been changed. Well not the electoral
college, but the winner take all. Oh, that's a good question.
It can be done through the state legislature. What they did in
Maine was they divided the state into two districts, half and
half, and what happens is they have five electoral votes. So
two go to the individual from one half if they win the other
two go to -- if one area of course they get four. And one
individual is elected to
vote from the top vote throughout the whole state. So
that was down through the state legislature of Maine. Is
that something we do with a ballot measure? Yeah.
Actually you could do it with a proposition on the ballot
as far as I understand it. There's no reason why we -
California has an extensively large constitution because
we do allow initiatives which allow for constitutional
amendments. I am not a constitutional scholar of
California. I am assuming the answer is yes. It makes all
the sense in the world to me. It can be done that way
considering what happened in Maine. It does not have to
be done through the federal government. I'm sure it will
be challenged. California has got the problem now that
will be challenged in the courts. We passed a
constitutional amendment to get rid of what is called
closed primaries. In California, up until two years ago
you could only vote in your own parties primary. Two
years ago we passed a proposition that said that people
from other parties can choose which party they want to
vote in. Based on the laws of both the republican and the
democratic parties any -- I'm sorry. Any delegates
elected to the democratic convention will not be allowed
there. In other words, California will not be allowed to
send to vote for a candidate to run for president. And
the reason is because that I have got an open primary.
Now that's going to be challenged. They're going to have -
- the open primary is definitely -- well I'm not sure.
It's weird. It makes all
the sense in the world to me candidly. Why should a
republican get to rote for a democratic? Why should -
it's not voting for the person when we go to the polls we
vote for the person and that's what most people in
California do. We should allow most people to vote for
whoever they want to when you choose it should be the
members of party voting. So the, the closed primary made
a lot of -- the open makes no sense in that basis, but
most people want the open primary because they were
deprived of voting for the better candidate in November.
So the parties themselves were opposed to it in fact.
Party pull the a proposition on the ballot to change it
for presidential primary in the year 2000. It was divided
by the people. Close, but defeated.
So California will run in to trouble in the year 2000
it will appear in the courts and it will be interesting
to see what compromise. They're going to have to come up
with something because the party rules say that you have
a closed primary. Any questions on the electoral college?
It's different from the primary. Because in the primary,
what are you electing? You're electing to choose a
candidate for president. When are the primaries usually
held? Usually the year of the election and usually in
February, March of that year. California used to run it
in June, but it's moved it to March and then where are
the convention held? They are held in the summer before
the election. The party empowers convention is first. The
party out of power
second. Or the party in power second, the power out of
the
power first. Right. -And usually the party out of power
will have it's convention at the end of July. The party
in
power will have it in August where they will select a
candidate for running for president.. Well, one of the.
problems because of the primary system is and it's
happened
three times in our history that people have gotten the
most
popular vote have not been president. Let's say New York
which has 37 electoral votes. In New York, Gore gets five
thousand, five million votes. And Bush gets seven million
and Perot gets a hundred thousand again and Kershner gets
five. He's got relatives there. Who who's going to be
president if there were only two states there? Well Gore
would be president because he's got 54 electors, Bush
only
has 37, but who's got the more popular vote? Bush. But
Bush has fourteen million, Gore has 12 million. By far.
So
the popular vote does not determine the president by any
means. As you can go see. Last time the conflict happened
was in the year 1888 in the Cleveland, Harrison election.
Cleveland got a popular vote majority. Or plurality more
than the Harrison. But Harrison got the necessary
majority
in the electoral college. Okay? In those years we didn't
have the fifty states. So the number for the electoral
college -- speaking about the college, how many senators
are
there? One hundred. Two for each state. There are fifty
states. How many representatives? 435. Could have said
four -- thinking it is 538 electors Kershners that the electors
number are determined by the members of house and senate which -
which make it 438. No, there are only 435 which leaves you how
many extra? Three. Where do they come from. D.C. By
constitutional amendment has three as if it were a state. They
don't have any in the house or senators they have observers. But
they don't have a vote you about they do have a vote by
president by amendment. If Puerto Rico were elected as a state
and had two senators and a representative, how many electors
would there now be? 541? There would be 540 not -- why 540? 541
sounds logical, but there won't be, it will be 540. Because we
would have two more senators making a hundred and two, right?
However, the number of members in the house is limited to 435 by
law. It can never go up. And so, where would Puerto Rico gets
its one representative there? Possibly California, but it can be
any state depending on the proportion of California. So it would
have to come out of the 435. Do you follow that?
Is that why like Puerto Rico isn't it will be blocked from
allowing Puerto Rico from becoming a state? No. There's
pressure. It's a pretty close vote. There's many people that
want to maintain the non state system because better tax
benefits for some reason, but apparently they're better
benefits for businesses by not being -- it's no, sir, at as big
as it was in the 1950s there was an attack and an attack
planned on president Truman for an assassination by
Puerto Rican nationalists but in 1950, a number I think
it was three, Puerto Rican nationals went into house of
representative and open fired. Killing one of two
representative at the time. Three of them went in and
only killed two guys? You know, it's always amazed me
when you open fire and even the weapons weren't as
strong, but even today you see these people shooting all
over the place and it's amazing how few people rarely get
killed in those kind of massacres in school areas or
whenever like the Stockton school years, the guy should
have mowed down everybody there and you know
irrationality of it is what happens, but they are not
aiming and that's the difference. When a guy gets up on a
tower as they did at the University of Texas and just
start shooting one shot at a time, that's another story.
It's the same thing you know in prisons. I had a prison
guard in class one day and they talked about stabbing.
See, when they stab in prison, they usually do it out of
anger and they'll stab you 23 times and people don't die
because they never hit a vital stop. When a person stabs
you once, you're dead. Because that person is rational
and knows where he's going with the knife. Okay? And
makes some sense. I hope I don't ever experience it.
Things make sense sometimes. They don't make sense, like
burning high schools to the -- I was going to say most
people use assault weapons, and they're defined to leave
the body lining to just exist out the back and the
stopping
power from guns and the killing power come from when the bullet
stops and expands in the body. Well that's what they do.
There's a big sting to it.
San Jose police just accepted or are now permitting the
police to use hollow point round because apparently they will open
up in the body and because of that it will have a greater
stopping power and that's apparently a number of police force
now allowing police to use the hollow round for just that
reason. Obviously with assault weapons many are allowed to
carry them. Where previously they were carrying .45s which were
less accurate than assault weapons. Six shots instead of -- or
.38s which are fairly accurate. The -45s are not. So the police
are getting some fire power but it's an expense proposition.
All right. Question?
What are the positive and negative attributes of the
electoral college? Well I think all of us can name the
negative? Popular vote doesn't matter. It's not democratic,
What is the positive and that of course might be questionably,
what is it? Balances out the stupid factor. It might, I mean,
that's certainly not wrong maybe for the people who set it up,
but there's actually more logical reason. The states receive
perks, The larger the state the better the perks. The small
states don't get as much, What is does that mean? I just
alluded to it earlier. If I'm running for president. California
lots of times.

I'm going to go to

And when I go to California I got
to give something to the state to get a state leaders mind
me to give me support to get out the vote so I'm going to
promise them you know to take care of, protect against off
shore drilling to save the spotted owl you know make sure
that the companies here get the super conductor or whatever
-- that was one of the big issues a number of years ago and
so with those kind of promises if I get elected, I better
dam well adhere to many of them or try to otherwise not a
second time because patronage and they're take care of big
states so beneficial to the local states and the local
politicians of states to get those kind of benefits.
Obviously the small states aren't going to get benefits but
they don't matter as much. Out of the electoral college of
ten states can elect the president of the fifty. You could
lose every vote in all the other forty states and still
become president. Losing millions popular vote and still
become president with one vote in each city getting
majority. And so, the electoral college then does benefit.
What happens if this were a direct vote for president?
Well, the states don't benefit as much. Because generally a
candidate for president is not going to make trips as much

or the states. He can make general statements on the TV

through the media. He'll talk about more general subjects like
no new taxes. Or education, that's the biggy now. And these are
nice generally thing that will hit everybody, but they're not
necessarily mean money more the states. So
changing the electoral college is detrimental to the big states
immediately. It also has a certain impact in other small states.
If no candidate gets a majority of the electrical college, how
is the president elected? Congress? Well, House of Reps. The
House of Reps elects the president, the Senate elects the vice
president. In the House of Reps, the vote is cast one for each
state. How many votes then does it take to elect the president
in the house of reps? 26. How many members of house? 435. So
each state gets one vote. Which means Alaska is then Alaska is
then equivalent despite California's 52 reps. So there's a
little benefit if it had happen and 1876 and 1824. The house of
reps elected the president basically. You said that Cleveland
had the popular vote, but Harrison won the vote. Was Cleveland
president twice? Yeah. Cleveland was president. He's the only
president to be elected twice to different terms. Twice but not
consecutively. He lost to Harrison and came back again in 1892.
Okay? At which time he married a 23 year old woman in the white
house. And had a baby.
Clinton's got another scandal. Are you talking about Jane
Doe No. 5? Oh, well she was Jane Doe No. 5. That is congress was
able to see but the press was not with her name she was saying
he really has done worse things and never given in he have did I
say but they were trying to convince people in the house and in
this case they're charging him
with well they say it is assault, but it really amounts to rape
if the charge is carried out. Um, it was one of those -- you
know it's not easy like Paula Jones. They called her Jane Doe
No. 5 so she don't look like Paula Jones. -- well, in any case.
The more that the republicans bring out people to attack Bill
Clinton the greater chance Hillary has getting the senate from
New York. It's really strange. I think they're hurting
themselves in the long run. Why do I say that? Well Time
Magazine recently had a graph to show that every time he gets
accused they, the sympathy for her, she was one of the most
hated women in this country, Bill Clinton was loved and every
time Bill Clinton comes through as a bad guy or unfaithful
husband, everybody gets this sympathy for Hillary and so shows
coming through from down here she's way up here now in the
popularity in the polls and she's showing that if she were to
run for senator she would kill the New York by only 29 percent
of the New Yorkers would vote for what's his name? Whatever the
name of the -- but he said he doesn't want to. He would consider
not running, yeah, he may run for instead for governor he might -
- the farther you get away from the states the greater the
popularity. I'm sure Willie Brown's popularity is greater
outside of San Francisco then inside. And while New Yorkers like
him as mayor the farther you get away, the better because I
really like Willie Brown. I think he's done a great job for San
Francisco, but boy is he getting
attacked? You know that that's the Mayor of San Francisco,
right? Okay? We've got two Browns as mayor. One in San
Francisco and one in Oakland and the only thing they agree on
is the bridge. They don't want that bridge to be where it's
going to be and they don't like the design of the bridge. I
like the design. too? I'm glad I'm not alone.

I think it's got class. You

I think the reason that the popularity for Hillary is going
-- um, is because of the equivalence of the cry wolf factor is
the fact that the reps keep saying that this guy is bad. I
think the people feel sorry for her that she is a what's the
word I'm looking for? She's been that her husband cheats on
her, but it's not like she didn't know that. Yeah but it
doesn't matter. Especially with people who always believe you
know Americans take the side of the under dog. What other
person brought it on themselves or not it's a very much and
much different for other countries is typical American trait
that the underdog we favor. And even you know so it has been
traditional in this country that you know nobody's going to
argue that she didn't know or she wasn't aware of who she was
mayor and so they weren't doing it for her own power or real
his -- it's just that she's now the underdog. Did they say that
she wouldn't go get a divorce yet? Not at all. There has been
no implication. They were in a legal separation for short
period of time in Arkansas is that does not mean they filed
for divorce necessarily. Not that I know of. But there was a
separation. It may not have been legal. I think Chelsea should
run for office. Sympathy vote? Student body. What's his name
that book shrunken white that's that word student, student body.
There's no such thing as a student body. Well there are student
bodies, but -
Any questions on the electoral college then? Hopefully you
understand better. Most of the you will agree that it should go
bye bye. But there has been no successful movement even if you
asked politicians fifty percent -- I mean eighty percent of them
would say get rid of it, but too much tradition and the fear of
what you might bring instead. What might happen as we point out
in my text book in San Diego county a number of years ago there
was a split between the major candidates in the democratic
parties and the minor candidate who was head of KKK got the
nomination for congress. And the fear is that that could happen
at the presidency level. If you don't have strong parties, you
might have some strange third party person whom the Americans
don't support pull out the popular election by a small
plurality. Not a majority not even a -- by one or two percent of
the vote let's say all 123 people decided to run. Recall next?
On the sheet? To you remember? Plurality. What is that? What's a
plurality vote? When you have more than the other person but not
necessarily the majority.
Simple definition? What is the positive attribute of a
plurality vote? Positive attribute is the election is over with
and the person who may not have the majority vote but the most
votes win. The negative? The person who doesn't have the most
votes you could get a candidate who is a fringe candidate
doesn't get the support of anybody near the people most areas of
the world and in the united as well where there is a plurality
vote for election for mainly positions like governor or
president in other countries have a run off election. So that
the two or three top candidates compete, gets each other for the
majority to make it a majority. However, that will mean a second
election. And we're usually so tired of those adds and the
negativisms forget the millions upon million of dollars that are
spent for the election is that most persons are not supportive
of a popular vote and then a run off election they wouldn't
support it very much. what is recall? what do we mean by recall?
The ability of people they elect out of office? The ability to
remove the people they a elect out of the office. I'll add to
that; during their term of office. You can always remove
somebody out of the other, so it's the ability to remove people
out of the office during their term. Where does recall exist?
Yeah in California. Actually anywhere almost in California has
recall. It does not exist on the federal level. I guess I should
have said where doesn't it exist?
It does not exist on the federal level and in many states.
It is very popular in western states, but does not exist in
many states. It's one of the four or so direct democratic
reforms introduced at the turn of the century in the states
the political parties never liked people to control what's
going on in the party they want to control it so recall
wasn't very popular back east. It did not exist in New York
state when I was there. It may have some now. But recall is
the ability to remove somebody from office by popular vote
during their term of office.
on the federalism how do we get somebody out of the
office? Well we don't, who does? Congress. Through
impeachment process. So we don't have anything to do with
the impeachment process beyond expressing our points of view
on talk shows. However, in California and many western
states we have impeachment for the legislature to carry
without but we have the capacity of individuals to circulate
a petition stating reasons why the person should be
removed. The reasons don't have to be valid, we just need
to state it. And if there are enough signatures on the
petition on the ballot people get to vote to remove
somebody. The person is not removed by the petition, they
may be able to defeat the election and state in office. We
have had recalls here in Fremont, the city counsel, and
certainly the school board twice has had recalls. There was
a talk last night of recalling members of Ohlone college
board of trustees because the classified the secretarial staff
the skills staff has not received a raise in about six or seven
years and they haven't followed through on their studies and
they're -- I don't know why they're treating them the way they
are. It's really absolutely atrocious. They're by far the
lowest pay in the bay area. And I'm talking for the sake of it,
is that a young man from the business was who was in my class
last semester got so tired of what was going on here he took a
job at another community college the same position and is
getting fifteen thousand more a year. Now, that just gives you
a picture. I'm serious of what the pay is. Is almost nonlivable
for our staff and they haven't -- they gave the maintenance
worker and staff an increase. I don't know what they got
against the secretaries. And the records office. And it's not
all women either. Well, in any case there is talk of recall. So
recall.
What is a positive attribute? People don't like them they
can get them out. Well it's not so much -- but if they're not
doing their work after they've been elected people decide
they've made a mistake, they don't have to decide to the next
election. They can get them out right away. So you can remove
somebody when they're not doing their job anymore rather than
have to wait. Forces people to keep their promises.

What's a negative? Forces people to keep their

promises. Negative? A negative aspect of recall is that in
most cases it could be frivolous meaning that people can get
together get enough signatures cost a lot of money and
people really don't want to remove the person. They might
do it because they don't like the person which has nothing
to do with the way they're doing their job. Which was, of
course, one of the criticisms of the congress impeachment
process. Many people felt that Clinton is doing his job and
felt what happened in the white house had nothing to do with
his job at all so, and so it was a frivolous kind of charge
just his family and his moral leadership programs. Right or
wrong, that's the way the American public responded in the
press and I guarantee you that if after elections had taken
place as to recall Clinton or not if the polls were in any
indication he will have one over well mainly to remain in
office. Despite the charges. But as I've indicated before
I think that could have changed if the economy were bad if
his foreign policy had not been as successful as it has
been. It's really strange how he has come through even
though it look like nothing's going on there the reality is
that he's very well respected. Maybe because of Albright
and her hard nosed approach. I don't know. But many people
forget that his foreign policy and his military background
which was had hurt him internationally. I'm still not a
Clinton fan, sorry. I express my personal point of view.
equal opportunity. What do we mean by it? That he
should have full potential to achieve their -- I'm sorry
everybody should be allow to receive to achieve their full
potential. Everybody should be given the opportunity to achieve
their full potential. That's better. Positive attribute? If
people achieve their full potential, we have them healthier and
more protective society which benefits all of us. So equality
benefits all of us. But what is the negative of the principle of
equal opportunity? Brings some people down like the people who
really excel. It may bring down people to mediocrity. We talked
about that. It may demand in the demand for equal opportunity it
may cause some people to be requirement in what they can fully
achieve.
In other words, that's one process. The other could be the
issue of liberty. Equal opportunity may take away from others,
their liberties. Their freedom of choice when we try to create
potential for all people. And of course if you've ever read any
books by -- that's the whole major element of the thesis that
people who were creative should have a right to determine their
own creativity. But in a society where we demand equal
opportunity we may determine that the store owner can't run the
business the way he wants because he has to serve people he does
not want to serve and feels it will be detrimental to the
business. Any questions on equal opportunity? Or the principal
of it?
well let's go back to your chart then. I identified to you
that liberty meant taking into account others and the
impact you had on others. I said liberty was not license. That
equality was equal opportunity. Not equality of condition. But
people had a right under the law to be treated equality to
express themselves equality. However one of issues that I
pointed out when we were talking about the interfaces was the
congress that something arises between equality and liberty. And
perhaps the biggest in recent years has been a term that has
caused a lot of stir; affirmative action. Now, I didn't define
that in here yet did I? I don't recall doing that. Let me start
out by saying that sometimes the way you define something helps
you win an argument. So I can say by my definition that I am a
firm believer in affirmative action. I do agree that there have
been abuses. I don't agree that it should be ended, but amended.
But we cannot amend it if people have a mentality of abuse. And
see affirmative action or care require it out in a abusive
faction. Affirmative action has no quotas. It was never quotas.
One of the applications in some businesses and in government has
at times let to quotas. But quotas can create inequality rather
than equality. Affirmative action was defined to level the
playing field and make up for past grievance. Another question
that appears is how long do you continue the process of making
up for the past? Well if it was two hundred years in the past,
maybe it will two hundred years it make up for it of course that
is the question. But let
me define one of the first word in affirmative action
definitions creates most of the conflict. Preference.
Affirmative is giving preferences to individuals from groups
giving preferences from individuals from groups that are under
represented or have been denied access to power. It's giving
preferences from groups who have been denied access to power or
under represented or have been denied access to power. If, and
here's the kicker, that also causes problems. If they are equal
or near equal, inequal if they have equal or near equal
qualifications, if they have equal or near equal qualifications,
we no longer use the term minority. It becomes a hot word for
many people. We mention the Irish. Well the Irish are a
minority. There are Irish folks that are insulting, but the
Irish are not under affirmative action, why? By that definition
why aren't they? They don't seem underrepresented. If they are
anything maybe over represented at sometimes considering the
number of Irish in our country. So they're not represented in
the hauling of power even though they may be a minority in the
families that have immigrated United States. Okay?
So the term minority would be incorrect. The women are
actually a majority, but they are under affirmative action
because they are under represented in power and they had been
denied access to power. All right.