Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I think most Americans held their noses as they voted, whether for
bush or kerry (based on my friends and family) with only the democratic and republican bases really supporting either one. The electoral college is a throw back to when it was not the people who elected the president, but rather the states, just as the senators initially represented the states, not the people and were selected by the state legislatures. I think both parties failed to provided us with their 'best and brightest' from which to choose the president. This is why I and many other have migrated to the 'third parties' such as libertarian, reform, constitution or green parties. My objection early on to this thread was those outside the US telling us how dumb we were to elect bush and that we should choose our leaders based on what other countries think. When I start seeing the rest of the world choosing their leaders based on what America wants I will consider this, but that is not going to happen, nor should it. I think the last several elections point to the fact that we need to look again at how we select presidents, unfortunately, the entrenched interests of the two major parties will prevent this from happening as the current system, with the collusion of the media in the US, guarantees that the white house will always be held by one of the two. They are in no hurry to open up the competition further. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:14:48 GMT, "Brian D" wrotf: Finally, the correct answer! Add to that the fact that the electoral college is there to prevent the tail-wags-the-dog effect of high population centers and the fact that our electoral statesmen are supposed to understand how our country is based on transcendent law, not law based on current whim and fad (aka 'current public opinion') and you might be on to something. A guy that just wrote to me recently, one who'd rather see law based on current whim and fad, actually threatened to "take the government back, by force if necessary" ...talk about being uneducated, stupid, ignorant of history and governments ...including our own! True, Georgy Boy needs to cut the spending, learn how to veto the neo-conservatives, shrink government and it's programs (especially the liberal-left social engineering institution ...I mean the federal board of education), but at least he's a known quantity. The only things known for sure about Kerry are a) anti-establishment/anti-American, b) can't handle the realities of war, c) consistently grows government and raises taxes, and d) always votes for abortion. All other things in his mind are subject to the opinions of whoever is standing in front of him. We voted Bush into office because he's closer to what we want ...what the moral majority who understands our government and history, those that understand what works, wants. The rest of the world, the placating passifists and appeasers, have failed and are jealous ...rather than wake up and learn to emulate what succeeds, they'd rather whine and hate those that do succeed (too bad ...nanny nanny boo boo!). We elected the right guy, but need to work together to defeat Bush's tendency to spend too much and to grow government. The Middle East needs to get out of the hot sun and start thinking for a change, Islamo-fascists/imperialists in particular. The rest of you whiners need to quit your idealist utopia fantasy thinking and get real. It didn't work for Marx, and it won't work for you. Live and let live, folks. Don't whine and hate. Quit acting like a spoiled child. Fix the country that YOU live in and shut the hell up. That's what adults do. Next time you need military intervention in something, or want hand-outs, go ask China or France. In the mean time, it's time the US kicked the UN out of our country and dropped funding to zero. Brian "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Auerbach" wrote: I happen to have been for Kerry, but I am a democrat as well as a Democrat. Inherent in both is a belief that in this country we respect the decision of the electorate. Screaming that voters are blithering idiots means that the screamer favors something other than a democratic form of government. In all likelihood that would be a dictatorship, run by the individual doing the screaming. Now, about epoxy vs. polyester ... To bad you don't live in a democracy.....The USA is a Repersentative Republic.......or did you sleep thru that class in US History and Civics when you were in High School??????? Me |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I think most Americans held their noses as they voted, whether for bush or kerry (based on my friends and family) with only the democratic and republican bases really supporting either one. The I think "most" is a stretch. electoral college is a throw back to when it was not the people who elected the president, but rather the states, You clearly don't understand the wisdom of the Electoral College. just as the senators initially represented the states, not the people and were selected by the state legislatures. Unfortunatly most Senators and Represenatives represent themselves to the end of being reelected so as to make money and retain power. Representing the people vanished long ago in my observation. I think both parties failed to provided us with their 'best and brightest' from which to choose the president. In the case of the Republicans, they presented the only choice inasmuch as W was the incumbent. In the case of Kerry, I haven't a clue what the Dem party was thinking. From what I have heard, the Dem party was pretty much disorganized and never had any coherent plan. This is why I and many other have migrated to the 'third parties' such as libertarian, reform, constitution or green parties. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the 2 candidates. One of them IS going to win. As painful as it is, one must choose one of them. Idealogically the other parties have good points (some of them) but the reality is that one of the Red or Blue bozos is going to get elected. Vote for the one that offends you the least. My objection early on to this thread was those outside the US telling us how dumb we were to elect bush and that we should choose our leaders based on what other countries think. Absolutely! When I start seeing the rest of the world choosing their leaders based on what America wants I will consider this, but that is not going to happen, nor should it. Diddo! I think the last several elections point to the fact that we need to look again at how we select presidents, unfortunately, the entrenched interests of the two major parties will prevent this from happening as the current system, with the collusion of the media in the US, guarantees that the white house will always be held by one of the two. They are in no hurry to open up the competition further. Damn that Constitution! Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:14:48 GMT, "Brian D" wrotf: Finally, the correct answer! Add to that the fact that the electoral college is there to prevent the tail-wags-the-dog effect of high population centers and the fact that our electoral statesmen are supposed to understand how our country is based on transcendent law, not law based on current whim and fad (aka 'current public opinion') and you might be on to something. A guy that just wrote to me recently, one who'd rather see law based on current whim and fad, actually threatened to "take the government back, by force if necessary" ...talk about being uneducated, stupid, ignorant of history and governments ...including our own! True, Georgy Boy needs to cut the spending, learn how to veto the neo-conservatives, shrink government and it's programs (especially the liberal-left social engineering institution ...I mean the federal board of education), but at least he's a known quantity. The only things known for sure about Kerry are a) anti-establishment/anti-American, b) can't handle the realities of war, c) consistently grows government and raises taxes, and d) always votes for abortion. All other things in his mind are subject to the opinions of whoever is standing in front of him. We voted Bush into office because he's closer to what we want ...what the moral majority who understands our government and history, those that understand what works, wants. The rest of the world, the placating passifists and appeasers, have failed and are jealous ...rather than wake up and learn to emulate what succeeds, they'd rather whine and hate those that do succeed (too bad ...nanny nanny boo boo!). We elected the right guy, but need to work together to defeat Bush's tendency to spend too much and to grow government. The Middle East needs to get out of the hot sun and start thinking for a change, Islamo-fascists/imperialists in particular. The rest of you whiners need to quit your idealist utopia fantasy thinking and get real. It didn't work for Marx, and it won't work for you. Live and let live, folks. Don't whine and hate. Quit acting like a spoiled child. Fix the country that YOU live in and shut the hell up. That's what adults do. Next time you need military intervention in something, or want hand-outs, go ask China or France. In the mean time, it's time the US kicked the UN out of our country and dropped funding to zero. Brian "Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Auerbach" wrote: I happen to have been for Kerry, but I am a democrat as well as a Democrat. Inherent in both is a belief that in this country we respect the decision of the electorate. Screaming that voters are blithering idiots means that the screamer favors something other than a democratic form of government. In all likelihood that would be a dictatorship, run by the individual doing the screaming. Now, about epoxy vs. polyester ... To bad you don't live in a democracy.....The USA is a Repersentative Republic.......or did you sleep thru that class in US History and Civics when you were in High School??????? Me |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:23:21 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrotf: wrote in message .. . I think most Americans held their noses as they voted, whether for bush or kerry (based on my friends and family) with only the democratic and republican bases really supporting either one. The I think "most" is a stretch. Then again, you observed below "Vote for the one that offends you the least." Kind of makes my point, doesn't it? electoral college is a throw back to when it was not the people who elected the president, but rather the states, You clearly don't understand the wisdom of the Electoral College. If we want the president to represent the states - the original intent of the framers - then the electoral college is fine. There are those of us who believe that politicians should serve the people. Otherwise, why go through the sham of a popular election? I understand both the role of the electoral college and the reasons why it may not be the best solution for America today. We are much more diverse than the America of 1787 when the constitution was penned. Back then, the only voters were white male landholders. The country was agrarian with little of the industry we have today. The country was small. Unfortunatly most Senators and Represenatives represent themselves to the end of being reelected so as to make money and retain power. Representing the people vanished long ago in my observation. Sadly in my observation as well. I am not sure how that can be addressed, but it surely needs addressing. There are ways to take the money out of DC, but they require those in power willingly making changes that give up their power. This of course, is unlikely to happen and the remedy the constitution gives the people - to call a new constitutional convention - bears its own dangers, esp. in a country where most people do not even understand what form of government we have. In the case of the Republicans, they presented the only choice inasmuch as W was the incumbent. In the case of Kerry, I haven't a clue what the Dem party was thinking. From what I have heard, the Dem party was pretty much disorganized and never had any coherent plan. Regardless of bush being incumbent, he is far from the best the republicans had to offer us. Part of the problem is the polarization of the parties that tends to produce candidates with broad party support - playing to that party's extremes - but narrow appeal to those in the middle or the other side. I think eliminating the primaries and caucuses and having all candidates run in a single general election and then following that with whatever runoffs are necessary to find a consensus president that represents more of America would go a long way. It would also take power away from the two major parties, opening the presidency to more challengers representing a broader spectrum of opinion, pulling people away from the 'them or us' two party mentality and causing us to really listen to what candidates have to say. Also, eliminating the current primary/caucus system would remove the disproportionate sway certain states have in the primary process where only two or three states have a chance to vote on all the candidates. Unfortunately, you have to choose between the 2 candidates. One of them IS going to win. As painful as it is, one must choose one of them. Idealogically the other parties have good points (some of them) but the reality is that one of the Red or Blue bozos is going to get elected. Vote for the one that offends you the least. No, you do not have to vote for one of them even though, for now, they have a disproportionate advantage. Their formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates virtually guaranteed that for the moment they can marginalize the other candidates as their rules for who can participate lock out other candidates where the old League of Women Voters format allowed other candidates to participate. And as more people vote for the other parties, two things happen. One is that the parties begin to look at the issues the third parties raise and assimilate some of them. The other is that they circle the wagons. Indeed, the copd is a direct reaction to the success of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in getting significant numbers of votes that, while not winning the elections, certainly altered the outcomes. It is doubtful that Bill Clinton could have won either election without Perot nor that Bush could have won without Nader. Candidates like Howard Dean show how much effect Nader had on the Democrats and by the same token Bush's 'kinder, gentler conservative' rap was a nod towards Perot's politics. My objection early on to this thread was those outside the US telling us how dumb we were to elect bush and that we should choose our leaders based on what other countries think. Absolutely! When I start seeing the rest of the world choosing their leaders based on what America wants I will consider this, but that is not going to happen, nor should it. Diddo! I think the last several elections point to the fact that we need to look again at how we select presidents, unfortunately, the entrenched interests of the two major parties will prevent this from happening as the current system, with the collusion of the media in the US, guarantees that the white house will always be held by one of the two. They are in no hurry to open up the competition further. Damn that Constitution! The system by which we hold the presidential elections (the popular election portion) is by no means dictated by the constitution. The constitution leaves it to the states to decide how they apportion their electoral college votes. The primary/caucus system, the debates and the elections themselves are NOT defined in the constitution other than setting the rules for who can hold the presidency. The system by which we run the popular vote is entirely a product of the politians. This can and should be revised, whether or not the electoral college is kept or changed. I think Colorado's proposed amendment where they would apportion votes rather than be a winner take all system is a good step. The current system resulted in the two 'big candidates' focusing their attention almost entirely on just 6 'battleground' states. If apportioned voting applied nation wide, then the candidates would have to work more broadly than they did this time. Those who claim a straight popular vote would over-empower the urban centers need only look at the popular vote this year. The urban centers did not determine the winner in either the popular or electoral college vote. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I've already shot myself in the foot in a religious discussion this week, so
what the heck, I'll jump in on this one. (Don't try this at home kids, you'll just look stoopid. I'm an amateur.) wrote in message snip If we want the president to represent the states - the original intent of the framers - then the electoral college is fine. There are those of us who believe that politicians should serve the people. Otherwise, why go through the sham of a popular election? I understand both the role of the electoral college and the reasons why it may not be the best solution for America today. We are much more diverse than the America of 1787 when the constitution was penned. Back then, the only voters were white male landholders. The country was agrarian with little of the industry we have today. The country was small. I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play. You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc. With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state. snip No, you do not have to vote for one of them even though, for now, they have a disproportionate advantage. Their formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates virtually guaranteed that for the moment they can marginalize the other candidates as their rules for who can participate lock out other candidates where the old League of Women Voters format allowed other candidates to participate. And as more people vote for the other parties, two things happen. One is that the parties begin to look at the issues the third parties raise and assimilate some of them. The other is that they circle the wagons. Indeed, the copd is a direct reaction to the success of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader in getting significant numbers of votes that, while not winning the elections, certainly altered the outcomes. It is doubtful that Bill Clinton could have won either election without Perot nor that Bush could have won without Nader. Candidates like Howard Dean show how much effect Nader had on the Democrats and by the same token Bush's 'kinder, gentler conservative' rap was a nod towards Perot's politics. I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p) snip The system by which we run the popular vote is entirely a product of the politians. This can and should be revised, whether or not the electoral college is kept or changed. I think Colorado's proposed amendment where they would apportion votes rather than be a winner take all system is a good step. But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado 1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have marginalized itself. The current system resulted in the two 'big candidates' focusing their attention almost entirely on just 6 'battleground' states. If apportioned voting applied nation wide, then the candidates would have to work more broadly than they did this time. Those who claim a straight popular vote would over-empower the urban centers need only look at the popular vote this year. The urban centers did not determine the winner in either the popular or electoral college vote. If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter. For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting chance at influencing things. I'm not a big city person at heart and never will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that. **** See, relates to boating! Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process! Oh, nothing personal. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "Greg"
wrotf: I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play. You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc. With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state. The problem is that I am more concerned about the votes of people than states. I am really unconcerned with what clout the 'state' has. They are no longer the monolithic populations they were 200 years ago and even then, only a small percentage of the people were represented in any way. I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p) And if neither party is close to your beliefs? I see such huge problems with both parties that I cannot in good conscience support either. But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado 1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have marginalized itself. yes, but it would eliminate the marginalization of the orphan voters in colorado and if adopted nationwide, it would end the focus on 'battleground states where in reality only a small number of states really decide who is going to be president. 136,000 more votes in ohio and Kerry would be president though he had less than a majority and 3 million votes less than bush. If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter. The bigger problem is the focus on a few states, giving them massively disproportionate power in the elections and conversely massively disproportionate power when it comes to political agendas. The electoral college would work much better if there were not 'winner take all' apportionment of each state's electoral votes though my basic feeling is that the focus on representing states rather than voters puts the election in the wrong perspective for the politicians. Is there a perfect, non-scammable way to elect the president? Probably not, but this system is ripe for revision. It can be run much better and it can be run so that more points of view can have a chance to rise to the top. For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting chance at influencing things. Then you should agree with me in my desire to have a system where the individual counts more. I'm not a big city person at heart and never will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that. Really? then why isn't Kerry the president now? - even with the solid support of urban areas, he lost both the popular and electoral votes. **** See, relates to boating! Personally, I am hoping to be starting a circumnavigation before the next presidential race - the kick off to an early retirement if I can get the boat built before then. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process! Oh, nothing personal. seemed a great nic for a sailor though |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "Greg" wrotf: I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play. You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc. With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state. The problem is that I am more concerned about the votes of people than states. I am really unconcerned with what clout the 'state' has. They are no longer the monolithic populations they were 200 years ago and even then, only a small percentage of the people were represented in any way. As I understand it from my (sadly) limited reading/study, the intent was for the state to be the true representative body of its people. The federal government was to be the CEO of sorts that bound the states into the "United" part. I think we have gone way overboard**** in the power the states have given up to the Fed. Speed limits for simple example. Do it the Fed way or no money for interstates. Money that came from the people of said state. It is much easier to influence your reps when they live down the street. **** More boating references! I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p) And if neither party is close to your beliefs? I see such huge problems with both parties that I cannot in good conscience support either. I understand that position and held it once myself, but, you take yourself out of the process. Better to join the party that at least lands on your side of the ruler and become a loud mouth pest. Change from within is always easier, unless the outsider swings a big hammer, but it happens. Personally, I'm very interested in the National Sales tax and what comes of it. That was an idea that percolated up from third party interests, if I'm not mistaken. But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado 1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have marginalized itself. yes, but it would eliminate the marginalization of the orphan voters in colorado and if adopted nationwide, it would end the focus on 'battleground states where in reality only a small number of states really decide who is going to be president. But those battle ground states were such because the others had made their choice. It could have easily been a different 6 or 3 or 12. 136,000 more votes in ohio and Kerry would be president though he had less than a majority and 3 million votes less than bush. Trouble with any system is that eventually someone must lose, no matter how the votes are tallied. I respect the individual and think we have trampled the intended constitutional rights of individuals. However, IMO, part of the problem is our diverse population and how we as individuals interact in our society. Someone always seems to do something that "offends" someone else, which results in lawsuits and more laws to restrict individual rights. I realize the idea is non-PC today, but I think that's what states/communitites are for - like minded people. Just as I think people moving into homes by Airports and being offended by the noise are stupid, I think someone with more liberal views moving into red-neck country and then complaining about the Christmas scene on the State Square to be stupid. But they do and then have a lawsuit and the 90% or more that thinks it's ok must suffer. A majority is simply the largest group of individuals after all. Where are their rights? If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter. The bigger problem is the focus on a few states, giving them massively disproportionate power in the elections and conversely massively disproportionate power when it comes to political agendas. The electoral college would work much better if there were not 'winner take all' apportionment of each state's electoral votes though my basic feeling is that the focus on representing states rather than voters puts the election in the wrong perspective for the politicians. As stated above, this situation came about because other states had already made their choices. Again, someone must lose, and from the state level, for me, it is right that the majority elects the candidates. Is there a perfect, non-scammable way to elect the president? Probably not, but this system is ripe for revision. It can be run much better and it can be run so that more points of view can have a chance to rise to the top. For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting chance at influencing things. Then you should agree with me in my desire to have a system where the individual counts more. Yes and no. If an individual's state does not represent their point of view, I would honestly suggest moving or working within a party for change. As an example, I have lived briefly in northern Kalifornia and it is a beautiful area - I truly loved it. However, given its socialist and extremely liberal government, I would never live there permanently. No government can be everything to everyone. Resource scarcity alone would see to that. And I shudder at the thoughts of some type of Majority/Minority power sharing government. We can hardly get anything done now with one in charge. I'm not a big city person at heart and never will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that. Really? then why isn't Kerry the president now? - even with the solid support of urban areas, he lost both the popular and electoral votes. It is just an opinion that such areas' populations will continue to increase and become more liberal. Whether or not the other areas keep up and maintain parity in remains to be seen. And as the big map shows, few states actually voted for Kerry but he came very close to winning. I guess I come down as a states rights person, with a weak Fed. I believe most issues are better handled at the state level where constituents can at least drive to their Capitol in a day and grab their rep as he steps outside. That makes the individual much more effective at influencing government. But that is a notion long dead I'm afraid. Everyone wants to suck on the Federal teat it seems. **** See, relates to boating! Personally, I am hoping to be starting a circumnavigation before the next presidential race - the kick off to an early retirement if I can get the boat built before then. Wow, I'm impressed. Myself, I'm a newbie wannabe with no more experience than bass boating. But, I'm reading all the mags and groups and visiting local marinas. Hopefully I'll know a bit by the time I'm ready to open the wallet. However, I'm worried my experience visiting the big ships dad served on might have my room/comfort ideas at an unaffordable and unrealistic level. My apologies if my response wondered off. It's after midnight and my brain went somewhere. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process! Oh, nothing personal. seemed a great nic for a sailor though |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:48:39 GMT, "Greg"
wrotf: As I understand it from my (sadly) limited reading/study, the intent was for the state to be the true representative body of its people. The federal government was to be the CEO of sorts that bound the states into the "United" part. I think we have gone way overboard**** in the power the states have given up to the Fed. Speed limits for simple example. Do it the Fed way or no money for interstates. Money that came from the people of said state. It is much easier to influence your reps when they live down the street. The easiest way to resolve that situation is to return the feds to their original funding - tarriffs and then the rest was charged to the states on a per capita basis, thus all money originated in the states not the federal government, thus ending the blackmail legislation like the federal speedlimits. I understand that position and held it once myself, but, you take yourself out of the process. Better to join the party that at least lands on your side of the ruler and become a loud mouth pest. Change from within is always easier, unless the outsider swings a big hammer, but it happens. Personally, I'm very interested in the National Sales tax and what comes of it. That was an idea that percolated up from third party interests, if I'm not mistaken. The view I take is one of conscience, that the stand I take by actuallly voting for someone I truly support is more important than who actually wins as I feel that over time much of what we believe will be adopted as they see votes leaking out of their fold. But those battle ground states were such because the others had made their choice. It could have easily been a different 6 or 3 or 12. Typically it changes very little. Most states have had long term small majorities for one party or the other with little change happening between them. Trouble with any system is that eventually someone must lose, no matter how the votes are tallied. I respect the individual and think we have trampled the intended constitutional rights of individuals. However, IMO, part of the problem is our diverse population and how we as individuals interact in our society. Someone always seems to do something that "offends" someone else, which results in lawsuits and more laws to restrict individual rights. I realize the idea is non-PC today, but I think that's what states/communitites are for - like minded people. Just as I think people moving into homes by Airports and being offended by the noise are stupid, I think someone with more liberal views moving into red-neck country and then complaining about the Christmas scene on the State Square to be stupid. But they do and then have a lawsuit and the 90% or more that thinks it's ok must suffer. A majority is simply the largest group of individuals after all. Where are their rights? Even in the reddest red states and the bluest blue states the majorities are quite thin, usually less than 10%. All states now have a mix of urban, suburban and rural populations each with a predilicition towards one party or the other. And I think having people who do not share the majority opinion is good for any community as it tends to make people look at their beliefs and moderate their effects somewhat. As stated above, this situation came about because other states had already made their choices. Again, someone must lose, and from the state level, for me, it is right that the majority elects the candidates. why not just take that to the next step and make it the popular majority rather than assigning the electoral votes of an entire state to a candidate who may have won only 40% of the votes? This was the case in almost every state in the three elections prior to this last election and even where there was a majority it was usually no more than 51 to 53%, giving the votes of the other 47 to 49% to a candidate they did not support. Yes and no. If an individual's state does not represent their point of view, I would honestly suggest moving or working within a party for change. As an example, I have lived briefly in northern Kalifornia and it is a beautiful area - I truly loved it. However, given its socialist and extremely liberal government, I would never live there permanently. Again, none of the states are truly monolithic though if you look at their legislatures - also using winner take all districts - it would appear they are. We have been raised with this system and seem to lose sight that there can be other ways to do things. My brother (an extreme liberal democrat) sent me a book I have been reading that you might find enlightening. Its called Fixing Elections by Steven Hill. It really looks at our current electoral system and the pros and cons of it as well as alternatives to it. No government can be everything to everyone. Resource scarcity alone would see to that. And I shudder at the thoughts of some type of Majority/Minority power sharing government. We can hardly get anything done now with one in charge. Of course not, but as for the majority/minority power sharing, that is one of the reasons for a constitutional republic over a democracy. The majority cannot always do as they please because it does tread on the rights of the minorities. As for not getting anything done, that is frequently the best. Look at the Patriot act which was blindly passed in the post 9/11 panic and which greatly infringes on basic civil rights. This is what happens when their is no opposition saying "wait a minute, lets really look at this thing before we vote on it." It is just an opinion that such areas' populations will continue to increase and become more liberal. Whether or not the other areas keep up and maintain parity in remains to be seen. And as the big map shows, few states actually voted for Kerry but he came very close to winning. Under the electoral college he could have - with 136000 more ohio votes, won while losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes. I guess I come down as a states rights person, with a weak Fed. I believe most issues are better handled at the state level where constituents can at least drive to their Capitol in a day and grab their rep as he steps outside. That makes the individual much more effective at influencing government. But that is a notion long dead I'm afraid. Everyone wants to suck on the Federal teat it seems. Again, returning federal funding to the original constitution would effect that change. The amendment creating the IRS was, like the patriot act, a case where both parties in a time of national emergency (ww1) passed a piece of legislation with little true thought about the long term consequences and the states were bullied under the same emergency into ratifying it. Wow, I'm impressed. Myself, I'm a newbie wannabe with no more experience than bass boating. But, I'm reading all the mags and groups and visiting local marinas. Hopefully I'll know a bit by the time I'm ready to open the wallet. However, I'm worried my experience visiting the big ships dad served on might have my room/comfort ideas at an unaffordable and unrealistic level. I like things simple and independent and am building my boat with that in mind. Less dependence on any government and more dependence on myself. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 06:48:39 GMT, "Greg" wrotf: As I understand it from my (sadly) limited reading/study, the intent was for the state to be the true representative body of its people. The federal government was to be the CEO of sorts that bound the states into the "United" part. I think we have gone way overboard**** in the power the states have given up to the Fed. Speed limits for simple example. Do it the Fed way or no money for interstates. Money that came from the people of said state. It is much easier to influence your reps when they live down the street. The easiest way to resolve that situation is to return the feds to their original funding - tarriffs and then the rest was charged to the states on a per capita basis, thus all money originated in the states not the federal government, thus ending the blackmail legislation like the federal speedlimits. agree with that. I understand that position and held it once myself, but, you take yourself out of the process. Better to join the party that at least lands on your side of the ruler and become a loud mouth pest. Change from within is always easier, unless the outsider swings a big hammer, but it happens. Personally, I'm very interested in the National Sales tax and what comes of it. That was an idea that percolated up from third party interests, if I'm not mistaken. The view I take is one of conscience, that the stand I take by actuallly voting for someone I truly support is more important than who actually wins as I feel that over time much of what we believe will be adopted as they see votes leaking out of their fold. But if you don't vote for anyone, it doesn't help or hurt them. If only 10 people vote and the other 100 mil sit on the sidelines, the candidates will only worry about the 10. But those battle ground states were such because the others had made their choice. It could have easily been a different 6 or 3 or 12. Typically it changes very little. Most states have had long term small majorities for one party or the other with little change happening between them. Didn't the south go from hardcore democrat to majority republican? Trouble with any system is that eventually someone must lose, no matter how the votes are tallied. I respect the individual and think we have trampled the intended constitutional rights of individuals. However, IMO, part of the problem is our diverse population and how we as individuals interact in our society. Someone always seems to do something that "offends" someone else, which results in lawsuits and more laws to restrict individual rights. I realize the idea is non-PC today, but I think that's what states/communitites are for - like minded people. Just as I think people moving into homes by Airports and being offended by the noise are stupid, I think someone with more liberal views moving into red-neck country and then complaining about the Christmas scene on the State Square to be stupid. But they do and then have a lawsuit and the 90% or more that thinks it's ok must suffer. A majority is simply the largest group of individuals after all. Where are their rights? Even in the reddest red states and the bluest blue states the majorities are quite thin, usually less than 10%. All states now have a mix of urban, suburban and rural populations each with a predilicition towards one party or the other. And I think having people who do not share the majority opinion is good for any community as it tends to make people look at their beliefs and moderate their effects somewhat. What if you don't want to moderate your beliefs? I've already read some of the excitable exchanges between Windies and Putt-putts. Do we moderate each group and enforce a motorsailer solution for all? why not just take that to the next step and make it the popular majority rather than assigning the electoral votes of an entire state to a candidate who may have won only 40% of the votes? Ah, but won the majority of applicable states. This was the case in almost every state in the three elections prior to this last election and even where there was a majority it was usually no more than 51 to 53%, giving the votes of the other 47 to 49% to a candidate they did not support. Again, none of the states are truly monolithic though if you look at their legislatures - also using winner take all districts - it would appear they are. We have been raised with this system and seem to lose sight that there can be other ways to do things. My brother (an extreme liberal democrat) sent me a book I have been reading that you might find enlightening. Its called Fixing Elections by Steven Hill. It really looks at our current electoral system and the pros and cons of it as well as alternatives to it. I'll add it to the list. Of course not, but as for the majority/minority power sharing, that is one of the reasons for a constitutional republic over a democracy. The majority cannot always do as they please because it does tread on the rights of the minorities. As for not getting anything done, that is frequently the best. Look at the Patriot act which was blindly passed in the post 9/11 panic and which greatly infringes on basic civil rights. This is what happens when their is no opposition saying "wait a minute, lets really look at this thing before we vote on it." Under the electoral college he could have - with 136000 more ohio votes, won while losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Again, returning federal funding to the original constitution would effect that change. The amendment creating the IRS was, like the patriot act, a case where both parties in a time of national emergency (ww1) passed a piece of legislation with little true thought about the long term consequences and the states were bullied under the same emergency into ratifying it. I like things simple and independent and am building my boat with that in mind. Less dependence on any government and more dependence on myself. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) Essentially, I agree with you. Butttttttt..... I can't see using the federal level to achieve the goal. The idea of moderation and everyone compromising is an idea that I don't think works. Everyone has a range of items that offend them, falling under religion, behavior, politics, etc. My impression of your responses is that via the fed, our country could be melted into a single compromising entity (correct me if wrong). I don't see people doing that because most people have core beliefs they won't compromise on. I sure do. So my approach would be moving the power to the states and lower and at least allowing people to live in, say counties, that closely match their way of life. Why should I in conservative north Alabama moderate how someone in liberal New York city chooses to live? Well this is a discussion that will be going on way after our final cruise. I don't see either system we desire popping up this century. Last word to you? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:58:44 GMT, "Greg"
wrote: But if you don't vote for anyone, it doesn't help or hurt them. If only 10 people vote and the other 100 mil sit on the sidelines, the candidates will only worry about the 10. I do vote - just not for dems or reps most of the time. And actually, they do care about me more than the 10 who they know will vote dem or rep. This is what they kept referring to as 'undecided voters'. The major parties consider all of us who support 3rd parties to be 'in play' and focus much of their activities on swinging us to their side, esp in the 'battleground states'. Didn't the south go from hardcore democrat to majority republican? Much of this was due more to changes in the democratic party than changes in the politics of the south which were always quite conservative. As the democrats focused more on liberal issues and minority/urban voting blocks the largely rural south found the republicans looking better and better. I live in Georgia and have seen the change here first hand. Many southern democrat politicians have swapped teams as well as they found that neither they nor their constituents could support the liberal agenda of the national democratic party. Remember that historically the democrats were the party of the confederacy and the republicans the ones who freed the slaves and pursued other social issues in the north. Over the intervening century and a half the parties swapped roles while the south remained very conservative (at least the white population while the black population embraces the democrats.) A good example of this change is Senator Zell Miller who was a lifelong democrat who now sides clearly and completely with the republican administration - I think he is probably the only senator to have given a keynote address to both a democrat and a republican presidential convention. He retired rather than become a republican but clearly if you read his book he can no longer support the platform of the democratic party. What if you don't want to moderate your beliefs? I've already read some of the excitable exchanges between Windies and Putt-putts. Do we moderate each group and enforce a motorsailer solution for all? Individuals often fight such changes but as society evolves we see it happen. Civil rights in the south is a good example. Southern whites had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reforming things in the south but most have learned to adapt and accept the changes. Ah, but won the majority of applicable states. Yes, but again, I am not supporting the idea of states voting but rather people's votes counting. I'll add it to the list. Its a worthwhile read Essentially, I agree with you. Butttttttt..... I can't see using the federal level to achieve the goal. The idea of moderation and everyone compromising is an idea that I don't think works. Everyone has a range of items that offend them, falling under religion, behavior, politics, etc. My impression of your responses is that via the fed, our country could be melted into a single compromising entity (correct me if wrong). I don't see people doing that because most people have core beliefs they won't compromise on. I sure do. A lot of that is attributable to a two party, I win- you lose political system instead of a multiparty system that requires the building of coalitions to run the government which require us to focus on the things we agree upon rather than trying to make our disagreements into law. So my approach would be moving the power to the states and lower and at least allowing people to live in, say counties, that closely match their way of life. Why should I in conservative north Alabama moderate how someone in liberal New York city chooses to live? Ah, but to do that we have to change the federal government which has taken the last century and a half stripping the states of power while the constitution states that other than the small number of enumerated roles the constitution grants to the federal government all power resides in the states. The movement to a federal income tax and then federal funding back to the states vastly accelerated that process. Well this is a discussion that will be going on way after our final cruise. I don't see either system we desire popping up this century. Last word to you? Yep, it will continue as long as America does. Personally, I am focusing more on boat building than politics. Alone on a sailboat in mid ocean, what happens in Washington is of minimal importance. As for windies versus putt-putts, the price of wind doesn't go up based on the vagaries of international affairs. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg" wrote in message news:oGgmd.411103$D%.137897@attbi_s51...
Essentially, I agree with you. Butttttttt..... I can't see using the federal level to achieve the goal. The idea of moderation and everyone compromising is an idea that I don't think works. spoken like a conservative, through and through. compromise and moderation was deliberately designed into the constitution when it was separated into legislative vs judicial vs executive branches. it seems the founding fathers were hellbent on creating a democracy that avoided the pitfalls of monarchies. i'm sure every king, dictator, stongman in history believed strongly in their own uncompromising and principled beliefs. if conservatives were more honest, they would openly advocate amending the constitution to do away with the rule of law, congressional oversight, dissent and anything else that smacks of the evils known as moderation and compromise. the genius of these checks and balances is not so much putting up with, or tolerating frustating compromises. no, the genius of a self-moderating and self-compromising system of government set forth in the constitution is that in the end, it turns out in many cases, the best course of action for the long run. radicals may hate the wishy-washy compromises inherent in amercian democracy, but these days, i thank god for them. Everyone has a range of items that offend them, falling under religion, behavior, politics, etc. My impression of your responses is that via the fed, our country could be melted into a single compromising entity (correct me if wrong). I don't see people doing that because most people have core beliefs they won't compromise on. I sure do. So my approach would be moving the power to the states and lower and at least allowing people to live in, say counties, that closely match their way of life. Why should I in conservative north Alabama moderate how someone in liberal New York city chooses to live? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
More bad news for Bush, good news for Americans | General | |||
) OT ) Bush's "needless war" | General | |||
Mystery Beach Photo Contest | ASA | |||
Another Boat show | ASA |