electorial idea...

[lasersailor184]

Huge population centers dictating the rules to the sparsely populated area will eventually lead to either the 2nd American Revolution or the 2nd Civil War. The name you choose for it will likely depend on which side you are on.

Is it coincidence that the red is the color given to states now tend to favor state's rights (think red Confederate battle flag) and  blue is the color given to states that tend to favor Federal omnipotence (think Yankee blue)? 

Was the secession issue ever settled in the Supreme Court or was it only settled by force of arms? Wonder if some state could secede and get it on the SC docket.

Unfortunately, nearly all states are too politically diverse for a peaceful secession.  The only solution is Revolution.  The real question is, When?

[Toad]

I wonder who caught it.

Probably everyone one that started their education before 1965 or so. After that it was probably not taught.

BTW, not only the electoral college but the Congress as well. Senate/House representation ya know.

[forHIM]

My problem isn't so much with the electoral college but as the winner take all nature of it on a per state basis and the fact that winning just 4 states out of 50 can get you the one fourth of the electoral votes needed.  Even if each of those 4 states the candidate wins by only 100 votes.

Why can't the electoral college be awarded by house / senate seat that they represent?  So if my house of rep area in MN votes 85% republican why can't the electoral college vote from my area be republican?  The two state wide seats (senate) could go to the majority.

[lasersailor184]

Some places they are.  But the states are split as to whether or not it's an all or proportion award.

[forHIM]

I thought only Oklahoma or Nebraska was that way today and all the others were winner take all.  Off to due some googling.

edit -- looks like Nebraska and Maine do the per seat/rep method and all the others do the simple majority.

[Shamus]

Sounds like a reasonable idea... now we also need to apportion the income tax the same way, so many dollars per acre divided by the population, I like it.

shamus

[lasersailor184]

Sounds like a reasonable idea... now we also need to apportion the income tax the same way, so many dollars per acre divided by the population, I like it.

shamus

You speak of repealing the 16th amendment. 

[Shamus]

You speak of repealing the 16th amendment. 

Well I guess you would have to do that, but I am not talking about taxing the income from property, I am saying that if the weight of elections is based on acreage than the revenue should be as well.

shamus 

[MORAY37]

The Electorial College is way out dated, and IMO does not refelect the Peoples Choice, Why should a select few deal out any states Electorial Votes

What's this Electorial College you speak of?  You must be a "Rocky"...errr... I mean Hillary supporter.  Replace the "Electoral College" with something that sounds almost like it but is somehow more in your favor.

Either that, or you flunked American Government class in college.

[MORAY37]

Lazs;

You do realize that my idea was an accurate description of the present electoral college system... don't you?

No, actually, he did not.  Surprised as you may be.

[Simaril]

The Electorial College is way out dated, and IMO does not refelect the Peoples Choice, Why should a select few deal out any states Electorial Votes

The major function of the electoral college is to prevent 3 way log jams. If you notice, systems that give direct representation end up with multiple viable parties that fragment the electorate. The effect then is to force major parties to cut deals with other groups in order to achieve a governing majority.

By using "winner take all" system on a state by state basis, minor parties have a hard time getting started. Those that have a good idea that attracts attention end up finding their programs co-opted by one of the big two, who then end up reflecting the will of the people.

Before slamming the electoral college, realize that it almost always reflects the popular vote totals, and the times it doesn't it offers regional weighting that isnt all bad. And, after all, one of the Presidents we've elected with Electoral College majorities and popular vote pluralities (ie leading but not enough votes to win the election) was Abraham Lincoln, who most historians consider either the best or second best president we've had. (That's not talking about his politics or his popularity, but the way he managed high stakes crisis after crisis in government, popular opinion, domestic political infighting, and international politics.)

[Simaril]

For Federal elections..  I think a way to assign electorial votes by state would be to do it by area.  Leave population out of it.

For instance.. If your state had 200,000 square miles.. it would get say 20 electorial votes for pres... if it had an area of 600,000.. it would get three times as many or 60 votes.

I would also like to see kalifornia divided into northern and southern kalifornia.

Having large population centers with people jammed into crap hole cities like so many stressed out rats.. determine how the rest of the country lives is just insane.. that is the real rift between "blue" and "red" America.

If not that..   what?

lazs

So you're proposing that the votes of rural people should be worth substantially more than those of urban and suburban ones?

Why not just appoint a reactionary dictator and be done with it!

[lasersailor184]

Before slamming the electoral college, realize that it almost always reflects the popular vote totals, and the times it doesn't it offers regional weighting that isnt all bad. And, after all, one of the Presidents we've elected with Electoral College majorities and popular vote pluralities (ie leading but not enough votes to win the election) was Abraham Lincoln, who most historians consider either the best or second best president we've had. (That's not talking about his politics or his popularity, but the way he managed high stakes crisis after crisis in government, popular opinion, domestic political infighting, and international politics.)

Not to interrupt you, you were on a role.  But Lincoln wasn't one of the best presidents.  Not even close.

[Simaril]

Nice troll. But repeated polls of professional historians (not amateur keyboard smashers) would disagree with you.

So you're not even close.

[lasersailor184]

Yeah, what was I thinking?  Impinged freedoms, committed unconstitutional acts, killed 600,000 americans...