neverOriginally posted by DinoDoc
Just whored itself to criminal gangs.
Originally posted by Dissident
no way. each state has it's own culture. It makes it a joy to travel accross america to see all of them. If they are all the same, what's the point of seeing them?
1) This is rapidly becoming completely false in any way.
2) Various regions have their own culture, but to say that there are 50 distinct state cultures is BS.
3) The differences are a lot more rural vs urban than state to state. States contain both big cities and rural areas.
4) This wouldn't get rid of any different cultures.
neverOriginally posted by DinoDoc
Just whored itself to criminal gangs.
?Originally posted by Ramo
How, exactly, does the electoral college have anything to do with de-centralized governance?
Regional rights and issues should be considered when electing an executive. This is not de-centralization of the federal gov't but rather regional representation in its formation.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Where do you live again?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Completely wrong. The South, which is arguably the most homogenious region in the country, varies greatly (and proudly I might add) from state to state. There is definiately a difference in culture among the states.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Originally posted by Dissident
no way. each state has it's own culture. It makes it a joy to travel accross america to see all of them. If they are all the same, what's the point of seeing them?
1) This is rapidly becoming completely false in any way.
2) Various regions have their own culture, but to say that there are 50 distinct state cultures is BS.
3) The differences are a lot more rural vs urban than state to state. States contain both big cities and rural areas.
4) This wouldn't get rid of any different cultures.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
No, it hasn't. The original point was because the States were independent and sovereign entities, and they would no more agree to a direct democracy than we would allow population-based representation on the UNSC. China would dictate everything. The point was not for states to be, as they are (or at least should be) now, just administrative districts to take care of local isssues like schools, zoning, etc. that just can't be handled effectively on the federal level. We don't have some sacrosanct "county's rights", why should we hold "state's rights" any more sacred? They are a means to an end, that's all.Originally posted by PLATO
This has always been the point. Some things at the local level that are important vary from state to state.
especially Mississippi
I would agree states like Deleware don't have much culture (though people from that state would probably disagree). I don't think it's that different from maryland.
But in the west side of the country. States like Nevada are very different from Idaho, Utah, Oregon, California, and Arizona.
Maybe, but to argue that each and every state is distinct nowadays is ridiculous. Especially given that the important differences (wrt politics) are often urban vs rural things.Originally posted by PLATO
Completely wrong. The South, which is arguably the most homogenious region in the country, varies greatly (and proudly I might add) from state to state. There is definiately a difference in culture among the states.
?
Regional rights and issues should be considered when electing an executive. This is not de-centralization of the federal gov't but rather regional representation in its formation.
How does the electoral college contribute to the consideration of regional issues in the election of the President, when everyone but a small portion of the country gets ignored in the campaign?
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
We tend to be a little overprotective of the Bill of Rights.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
why should we hold "state's rights" any more sacred?
These areas are "ignored" because they are decided for the most part.Originally posted by Ramo
?
Regional rights and issues should be considered when electing an executive. This is not de-centralization of the federal gov't but rather regional representation in its formation.
How does the electoral college contribute to the consideration of regional issues in the election of the President, when everyone but a small portion of the country gets ignored in the campaign?
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
State issues exist only in swing states?
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
yes.Originally posted by Ramo
State issues exist only in swing states?
serves the other states right for being so narrow in their population base.
Ignorant swing staters making crappy generalizations about red/blue staters.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
I think you are deliberately trying to cloud the argument while understanding the point.Originally posted by Ramo
State issues exist only in swing states?Nice troll though.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
I think you have no argument, and are just trying to justify bias towards small states in the EC.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
I like Ramo's use of the tongue smilie better than Plato's.
tongue smilie score:
Plato: 5
Ramo: 7.3
I am angry because someone in line in front of me at Subway ordered a sandwich that I do not like, even though it has no effect on me. This is how arguments against equal marriage rights sound.
hey now, my state has spent many, many years as a conservative republican state. Politicians used to never come to my state.Originally posted by Ramo
Ignorant swing staters making crappy generalizations about red/blue staters.
It's nice to recieve the extra attention.
Shrub used to live in Austin, and I can't remember the last time he came here. I'll never be able to throw some dung at him.
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
At least I got a 5 on the Mr. Fun Scale.Originally posted by MrFun
I like Ramo's use of the tongue smilie better than Plato's.
tongue smilie score:
Plato: 5
Ramo: 7.3
Ramo, All states have regional issues. The EC exists in order that the issues of the small state may be taken into account in the choosing of a national executive. Wheater or not a state is a "swing state" has no bearing on this fact. The fact that many states are decidedly for or against one particular candidate has no bearing on the national campaign other than allowing candidates to cocentrate on areas where there is still indecision on the issue. The EC serves a valuable purpose in giving every region representation in choosing a chief executive.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
The Electoral College does nothing to protect States rights anymore- if the electors were NOT tied to the results of a popular election by the state citizens, then yes, the EC would help protect states rights- but since that is no longer true, the EC serves no purpose in this regard.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
While there may be some truth in this statement, I am shocked by your statement that the voters cannot determine the best interest of their particular state.Originally posted by GePap
The Electoral College does nothing to protect States rights anymore- if the electors were NOT tied to the results of a popular election by the state citizens, then yes, the EC would help protect states rights- but since that is no longer true, the EC serves no purpose in this regard.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Bull. Individuals vote based on their OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND VALUES. A voter is austin is not voting base don what ranchers in east texas need, nor are citrus growers in the valley voting with the interests of San Francisco in heart, nor a guy in Brooklyn thinking about the needs of dairy farmers in Syracuse.Originally posted by PLATO
While there may be some truth in this statement, I am shocked by your statement that the voters cannot determine the best interest of their particular state.
In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Ramo, All states have regional issues. The EC exists in order that the issues of the small state may be taken into account in the choosing of a national executive.
Why should the issues of small states have precedence out of proportion to their population over the issues of large states?
Wheater or not a state is a "swing state" has no bearing on this fact.
It has every bearing on this. When was the last time the issues of Rhode Island or Montana come up in the Presidential Campaign?
The fact that many states are decidedly for or against one particular candidate has no bearing on the national campaign other than allowing candidates to cocentrate on areas where there is still indecision on the issue.
There's indecision everywhere. The election is simply not very close everywhere.
The EC serves a valuable purpose in giving every region representation in choosing a chief executive.
You mean, it serves a valuable purpose in giving small states disproportional clout and keeping the vast majority of the country out of the campaign?
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
I'm inclinced to agree with you.Originally posted by GePap
Bull. Individuals vote based on their OWN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND VALUES. A voter is austin is not voting base don what ranchers in east texas need, nor are citrus growers in the valley voting with the interests of San Francisco in heart, nor a guy in Brooklyn thinking about the needs of dairy farmers in Syracuse.
In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.
But I still say the system should stay, but electors should be required to split their votes based on the number of votes in a state. yes this includes third party candidates. It would make third party candidates slightly more viable.
It seems that recently, states' rights is beginning to turn away from being a means to repress minority groups, and god forbid -- be used for real, constructive purposes.
I know you are biased against the states, but even these ignorant remarks are too much for you
When the federal government was being bad, there were always a state or two who had a position which we, in 2004, would think was better and who would act upon that position.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
WRONG AGAIN BUCKO!And remember, the first talk of secession was actually from some northern states who were discussing it during the War of 1812.
source: http://college.hmco.com/history/read..._secession.htmThe term secession had been used as early as 1776. South Carolina threatened separation when the Continental Congress sought to tax all the colonies on the basis of a total population count that would include slaves.
and don't forget the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
Um... The 1776 'seperation' ISN'T the same as secession. You actually have to be part of a federal union before you can leave it. Being a co-revolutionary doesn't cut the mustard.
And the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions simply said the states can ignore federal laws it considered wrong. Nothing about leaving the group.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
but by implication, if states can ignore federal laws, they effectively have seceeded. Those resolutions were the basis for Calhoun's whole post-1820's political career of sticking it to the federal gov't, which eventually caused him to support secession.And the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions simply said the states can ignore federal laws it considered wrong. Nothing about leaving the group.
"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi
if states can ignore federal laws, they effectively have seceeded.
Um... no. Not at all. Simply ignoring federal law does NOT mean you are leaving the union. Many states attempted stuff like that in the early days of the Republic until the SCOTUS told them they can't do that stuff.
As your link says:
Calhoun had hoped that nullification was a proper, constitutional alternative to disunion
Nullification was supposed to prevent secession, not be a part of it.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks