Eliminate the Electoral College

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

That is leaving the group.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Why? The only rights that I see as important are the rights of individuals, not glorified administrative districts."

Of course the only rights are the rights of individuals. The theory is that the states are closer to the individuals, and therefore better guardians of their citizens rights than the federal government will be. The same argument follows down to the local government level. Which is why the original intention was to keep all government at the lowest level of the hierarchy possible, which is why the "or the states" language is in there.
Not, of course, that the federal government any longer recognizes any such limits.

I understand that. It's bogus. For one thing, almost every state has at least as large a population as the colonies combined did in the late 18th century. For another, individual rights are not the same as individual interests. It's in the interest of someone in a state that more federal money be spent in that state, but it has nothing to do with individual liberties. And states really aren't any more or less effective than the federal government at enforcing such liberties.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MRT144
ruralphobia? hardly! more like, hickphobia. I just dont think that rural places have that much to offer in the way of culture. The country is a nice place to visit (mendicino, shasta, etc etc) but to live there would be a different matter.

Newsflash -- not all rural people are hicks.

[Kuciwalker]

Only about 90%.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Why? The only rights that I see as important are the rights of individuals, not glorified administrative districts."

Of course the only rights are the rights of individuals. The theory is that the states are closer to the individuals, and therefore better guardians of their citizens rights than the federal government will be. The same argument follows down to the local government level. Which is why the original intention was to keep all government at the lowest level of the hierarchy possible, which is why the "or the states" language is in there.
Not, of course, that the federal government any longer recognizes any such limits.

Wraith
"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages."
-- H. L. Mencken

Historically, the federal government had been a stronger protector of citizens' rights than individual states.

Although, as I and others have already mentioned, that seems to be changing now -- with both becoming strong protectors of citizens' rights.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by PLATO


Funny you should say that. The founding fathers were much more into representation than democracy. I believe that our States should be fully democratic, but that our Union should be representative.

And I understand and agree with the point about protecting the interests of individual States, I believe, but that is surely why each State to a large degree manages its own affairs. Making it so that the popular vote elects the President is surely more representative of America and Americans. Why should it be essentially the States that vote for the President? The States control their own affairs, so there is no need for them to control who is President as well.

Surely the system as it stands is too far in the representative direction? The President and Administration is responsible for the vast majority of relations overseas. This should be the choice of the majority of Americans, as the domain of the State government is exactly that - in the State.

Let the representation work at home ie State governments continue to look after their own local (State) affairs, and have the will of the people of the Union decide on who represents ALL of them in overseas matters, and in matters of presiding over these separate representatives (Senators and State governments). Is that really going to be so bad?

[MrFun]

But there are federal policy issues that affects states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That is leaving the group.

No it isn't.

[GePap]

Nothing is more dictatorial than the small town in whcih everyone knows everyone else and everyone has lived there for ever-there is a reason art, culture, science and so forth happens in the dynamic, flowing cities or centers of power.

The Federal govern,ment has increased the rights of individuals by erroding the rights of states to oppress people in their own bounderies. The 14th ammendment has done more for individual freedoms than the first 10, because it was only with the 14th that the first ten became universal and not submit to the whim of state legislators.

Why on earth is anyone dumb enough to think their state assembly person is closer to your interests than your Congressman?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by MrFun
But there are federal policy issues that affects states.

Sure there are. But don't State reps have a say in Federal government?

Please, tell me. I'm assuming this is the case here, as I don't really know. But if the answer is anything but 'yes', then you will see this smiley a lot from me

I'm not saying take away State government powers. All I'm saying is make electing the President of the United States something the people of the United States do, where one person has one vote that counts the same as anyone else's towards the number of votes the candidates get. What is so bad or scary about this?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt What is so bad or scary about this?

It's not the system you or I have?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No it isn't.

Yes it is.

What were we talking about again?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
Ned, your Colorado argument shows why I think "strict contructionist" = idiot.

Odin, actually arguing the fine points of statutes and constitutions is what makes the nation's approximately one million lawyers a living.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The Federal govern,ment has increased the rights of individuals by erroding the rights of states to oppress people in their own bounderies. The 14th ammendment has done more for individual freedoms than the first 10, because it was only with the 14th that the first ten became universal and not submit to the whim of state legislators.

Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Bravissimo!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
don't State reps have a say in Federal government?

They have no official say, but because they are in the state government, they have some influence with the state's national representitives.