Originally posted by old_sempai
The Electoral College?
Do you know who belongs to it?
Or how they are appointed?
PS
Do you know what type of retirement program is given to former US Congressmen?
Oh boy that's another hot, and eye-opening subject.
Taken from
http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
"How the Electoral College Works"
"The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics. "
This one is a little slanted, but it is taken from a Libertarian web site, so take that into account.
Taken from
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=135
Libertarian Party Press Releases
January 20, 1998
Lavish pensions can turn Senators into the $3 Million Man, new study reveals
WASHINGTON, DC -- Want to become a multi-millionaire? Just get elected to Congress and then retire, the Libertarian Party said today -- and lavish federal pension payments will turn your retirement years into an episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
This get-rich-quick scheme is revealed in a new report by the National Taxpayers Union, which finds that many politicians will pocket nearly $100,000 a year once they retire -- in addition to Social Security benefits.
"Politicians have built themselves a golden parachute. The only problem is, it's our gold that's paying for it," said Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Dasbach. "These federal pensions give a whole new meaning to the phrase: Golden years."
The taxpayers group, which calculated benefits for 29 Congressmen and Senators who have announced their retirement, found that many incumbents will make up to $98,694 a year from their federal pensions.
As a result, many Congressmen will collect several million dollars over the course of their retirement, the study found. For example, the estimated lifetime benefits of Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), who will retire at age 56, will be a staggering $3.2 million.
Congressman Vic Fazio (D-CA) will rake in $2.5 million; Congressman Joe McDade (R-PA) will pocket $2.3 million; and eight other retirees will make off with million-dollar-plus retirement packages.
Why are the benefits so lavish? Because the same politicians who wrote the rules are collecting the benefits, said Dasbach -- and because they know that taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.
"But, sadly, most taxpayers will never live as well as the Congressmen whose luxurious retirements they are funding," he noted. For example, with their $98,694 annual pensions, retired Congressmen will make:
* Nearly three times the $37,000 median household income in America.
"In other words, politicians will be making far more money for not working than ordinary Americans get for working," Dasbach said.
* More than five times the $17,000 pension paid to comparable private-sector retirees, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
"The study found that Congressional pensions are so exorbitant that they would violate tax law standards -- if they were offered by a private company," Dasbach said. "But politicians get away with it because they exempted themselves from this law."
* Ten times more than the average Social Security recipient.
"The average monthly Social Security benefit is $765, compared to a mind-boggling $8,225 a month for Congressional pensions," said Dasbach.
"But Congressmen aren't satisfied with these exorbitant pensions, so they made themselves eligible for Social Security benefits, too. When it comes to retirement, the U.S. Congress has picked the lock on the federal vault -- and they're helping themselves to handfuls of cash."
One side effect of the pension plunder, Dasbach pointed out, is that it gives politicians more incentive to stay in Congress, since the longer they serve, the higher their pensions.
"Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of what most Americans want," he said. "Abolishing Congressional pensions would be a built-in term limits mechanism by encouraging politicians to get real jobs in the private sector with honest pensions.
"Politicians already make $136,000 a year in office. There's no reason to continue paying them once they're out. It's time to retire these gold-plated pensions -- and slam the door on the Congressional millionaires' club."
One more of interest. This one is taken from
http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7573 a public forum on aviation.
"Politicians Enjoy Sweet Retirement Package
Philadelphia Daily News - By Craig Linder - October 13, 2000
WASHINGTON - As politicians fight about the best way to repair Social Security, few members of Congress are looking to change their own retirement system.
Members of Congress enjoy a generous two-pronged retirement system that combines Social Security with another, corporate-style benefit. All told, pensions for senior lawmakers can easily reach six figures.
First of all, though, put to rest the rumor that your representative in Washington doesn't have to pay into Social Security.
They pay 6.2 percent of the first $76,200 of their salary, just like everyone else. And like every other employer, the federal government matches the members' contributions - with your tax dollars, of course.
But the real sweetener comes from the two additional benefit plans that members of Congress, like all federal employees, can choose to join.
The first, called the Civil Service Retirement System, is available to members of Congress who took office before 1984. Under this plan, lawmakers receive Social Security and an annual pension based on their length of service and their highest salary while they were in Congress.
Members of Congress who are part of CSRS pay 8.4 percent of their salaries to the plan and the government matches their contribution. A lawmaker who earned the base salary of $141,300 would pay a total of $16,592 to the system - $11,868 to CSRS and $4,724 in Social Security.
Lawmakers who participate in the CSRS can choose to have their contributions and benefits from Social Security deducted from their contributions and benefits to CSRS, allowing them to take home more of their salary, but giving them fewer benefits when they retire.
The second plan, which covers most current members of Congress, is the Federal Employees Retirement System. Roughly 2.8 million active federal employees, from senators to postal workers, participate in FERS, which pays $40 billion each year to 2.4 million retirees.
Like the older congressional retirement plan, FERS provides retiring lawmakers with Social Security and a pension, but it also offers a defined-contribution plan, which is similar to a 401(k).
Lawmakers who chose FERS receive a pension based on their years of federal employment and military duty and their highest salary level. They also enjoy an annual cost-of-living increase.
Members of Congress pay 1.3 percent of their salary into the defined benefit plan and the government contributes about 11 percent of their salary to the fund each year.
A member of Congress who earns the $141,300 base salary would pay $7,125 - $4,724 to Social Security and $2,401 to FERS.
The 401(k)-like plan allows members to contribute up to 10 percent of their pre-tax salary into one of three investment plans.
Both plans allow members of Congress to retire at age 50 if they have served the government for at least 20 years, or at age 62 after five years of service.
How does Congress' retirement plan compare to the average American's? Pretty well, it would seem.
The average pension income for a retiree in 1994, the most recent year for which data is available, was $3,500, James Delaplane, a vice president with the American Benefits Council, said.
Compare that to the $50,203 annual average pension income of a retired member of Congress in 1998, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Or to former President Gerald Ford, who receives $261,000 a year in presidential and congressional pensions, according to the National Taxpayers Union.
A 1998 report to Congress said that FERS is "generous" compared to retirement plans in the private sector. According to that report, only 8 percent of private plans offer the cost-of-living increase that federal employees enjoy, and only a few allow members to retire and receive a full benefit as early as the federal plan.
Critics of government spending like the National Taxpayers Union have chafed at the "generous" retirement plans for years and have called on Congress to overhaul its system.
"The best possible thing Congress could do would be to take a page from the evolving retirement plans of the private sector and eliminate the guaranteed pension," keeping only the Social Security benefit and the 401(k)-style plan, said Pete Sepp, the vice president for communications of the Alexandria, Va.-based nonprofit group.
But members of Congress have been loath to tinker with their own benefits. A drive to overhaul the system following the "Republican revolution" of 1994 quickly fizzled. "
I know its a ton of reading, but it answers some of the questions that old_sempai voiced and that i think most peole should know.
