Makes perfect sense-- make pretty much any group of "them," and "they" will have a bunch of very important sub-groups, only a few of which will embody all the characteristics of "them."
This, because Dear Husband has been musing on the topic, made me think about the way that the Electoral College is supposed to work. (to my understanding, of course; on an aside, my love and I don't agree on the solution)
The point of the Electoral College is that this population won't watch that populations' interest as closely as their own. (Also a key point on why I'm conservative.)
The reform I want for the EC is that I want it broken down to representative districts-- maybe even just have your HoR member auto-vote for whoever wins the election in your district. Town kids just don't understand the realities of rural life, even if they have a vacation home out there. I'd like to see that respected on a national level.
22 comments:
"... made me think about the way that the Electoral College is supposed to work. (to my understanding, of course ..."
The whole point of the Electoral College, as with the original scheme of having the State governments appoint the State's senators, is that the US is a federal republic. The senators and the president do not rightly represent The People directly, but only indirectly, via the individual governments that the people of the separate States have instituted.
Further, the change you're talking about doesn't involve *any* reformation of the EC itself -- each State has total freedom to define how its EC votes shall be apportioned.
Right now, the EC puts all their votes for the guy who wins the majority vote for their state.
Since I want each representative's area to have a say, that is a rather big change.
Simple form: See this?
On further consideration, remove the "voting for" angle and make it so a rep's district goes for the majority vote in that district, and the Senate's minions are counted for the state's majority. It's a matter of balancing Majority vs ownership interest-- we are NOT a democracy.
I don't know about this arrangement, but I'm firmly against going to a popular. If we did that, then the big coastal states would rule--rule!--everyone else. Can you imagine California setting the national tone? California, where, if proggs had their way, underage girls could get secret abortions, but couldn't get Happy Meals?
Exactly my problem-- and right now, we have that on a state level. States are now big enough that it overwhelms the way.
"Right now, the EC puts all their votes for the guy who wins the majority vote for their state."
No; that's how most of the States decide to use/assign their EC votes. There is no law that is to be done that way, and one or two of the smaller States assign them by Congressional district.
"It's a matter of balancing Majority vs ownership interest-- we are NOT a democracy."
Which is one reason the original Constitution didn't provide for popular election of US senators, and why I advocate repeal of the 17th amendment (Part I and Part II).
No; that's how most of the States decide to use/assign their EC votes.
Illion! Come on! (Picture a female voice with humor and good will, not the ... donkey sort of tone this could be.)
Read what I wrote, not what you think I mean! I SAID that's how they do it-- not how they have to do it, or how they should do it! Yes, I'm aware that SOME states have laws that say that it'll be different, in some situations-- irrelevant.
Changing the 17th is a whole different deal, which would change the balance of power. Good or bad, it's irrelevant.
...And Elf just asked who "ill-eee- OOOOONNNN!!!!" is. ^.^
Yeah, I'm vocal.
"Read what I wrote, not what you think I mean!"
Please!
You're the one trying to make a case for overhauling the entire EC.
Exactly why you should watch what I wrote-- if someone has the personal option or if it has to be a mass option doesn't matter when I'm proposing a group option.
"What," not "how!"
1) I do not appreciate spam, "toto". If you can't bother to write something original, write it on your own blog and post a link.
2) The National Popular Vote movement is bad-- worse than the current problem of high population areas making choices for lower population areas.
(In response to three big cut-and-paste, incoherent posts.)
I believe Maine and Nebraska do use the system you suggest (apportionment by congressional district, rather than winner take all.)
It seems to me that if all the states adopted it, you'd have Republican candidates paying more attention to (parts of) California and New York, Democrats to (parts of) Texas, and probably a lot less attention paid by all to the bigger traditional swing states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida). So the incentives for the states are kind of tricky to work out.
It seems to me that if all the states adopted it, you'd have Republican candidates paying more attention to (parts of) California and New York, Democrats to (parts of) Texas, and probably a lot less attention paid by all to the bigger traditional swing states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida). So the incentives for the states are kind of tricky to work out.
Less attention to the traditional swing areas is kind of my goal-- trying to change the leverage without running head long into a bigger leverage problem, like the popular vote would. Main goal is to minimize how much folks can screw up other folks' stuff.
here is a blog i thought you might enjoy. i found it today.
http://blessed-and-broken.blogspot.com/
Thank you!
I'm so stealing the feeding tube post to link to for pro-life arguments. (I swear, folks don't realize how complicated feeding tubes are....)
i live off one for 10 months just a couple years ago. wasnt that complicated for me. i got hungry, i injected.
it actually made life easier once i came to peace with its existence.
that, and i kinda enjoyed freaking a few people out with it.
I run into a lot of of folks who treat having a feeding tube-- and/or being on oxygen-- as being not really fully alive. Given that one of my favorite great-uncles was on oxygen for DECADES, and it didn't slow him down, and now I've got an online friend who I know was on a tube, it's even more personal.
"not fully alive"
yeah, i can see that at first. the depression hit, but some good meds tempered that.
after that i 'came around'. i wasnt gonna let anything damper my spirit for life.
and the advantages, should one choose to recognise them, just make it all that much better. i spent a total of maybe 15-20 minutes a day 'eating'. i would inject every few hours, one can of formula six times a day. had it down to a science. think about how much longer that made my days in terms of free hours to enjoy myself, or nap, or...
it was under my shirt, so nobody who didnt already know about it didnt have to know.
the only trouble i had was with TSA when i insisted on carrying my week's supply of groceries on the plane (two whole cases of liquid) instead of checked baggage(where they could get lost). i won that battle when i called the supervisor.
*laughs* I'd almost pay to see that fight!
i wasnt giving in. i whipped out my tube and was flashing it around to make my point. and when the supe got involved, he just said "yeah, OK." and let me keep the six bottles of water, too. (i had to inject that too, along with the formula.)
Post a Comment