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?