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