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.

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

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

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)

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?

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)

"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?