IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Now let's talk about a couple of things.
1. Elimination of the Electoral College.
2. Reform of the Senate. The South and sympathizing Midwestern states lost the Civil War. It's time for our national government to reflect that fact. I remember a "criticism" of Al Gore from a couple of decades ago: he always wants to prove he's the smartest guy in the room. My response then as now was, "And?" We've seen what your "Average American" leads to if given too much voice in our politics. Do we really want to continue that? Why should Wyoming (FFS!) have as many votes as California in the Senate? Some may say, "That's the way it was intended. The Constitution specifically articulates that the States as a whole should be equally represented." I would remind readers that at the time this idea arose, it was part of many compromises to get the hayseed rural states to actually sign the Constitution. Then, as bastards usually do, they rebelled against the Union they had signed on to. At that point, all bets should have been off. Without basing Senate representation on the same basis as the House, I think a more sane approach would be to base how many Senators a State gets on whether that State is a net contributor or a net receiver of federal monies. If a state takes more in federal benefits than it gives, they get one Senator. If they give more than they take, they get two.

It's mourning in America again.
New Great start.
Now how do we get There from Here, that's the real question. In order to make those changes you're suggesting, you'd have to convince the guys benefiting most from the current status quo to give up their advantages.
use std::option::sig
New Now you are being silly.
1) Electoral College is here to stay. It gives disproportionate power to high land, low population states. They are not going to give up minority rule because it is in their interest to keep it.

2) The Senate was structured from the start to concentrate power in the hands of white, land owning rich men. Over centuries that has allowed 0.1% of the population to own something like 70% of the wealth. They aren't going to give it back of their own volition.
You seem to use the word "should" a lot. It doesn't seem to fit reality. All the prattle I was inundated with in grade school in the 50's was just a pretty story to keep the rabble in line. The claims of America being the leader of democracy in the world is just bullshit that was passed around at the time. We aren't a democracy and never have been. I'd be happy just to see us get back to being a first world country again. Expecting people to relinquish power and/or money for "the greater good" as seen by someone else is just being silly (usually. There are a few exceptions here and there.)
"Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."
New mass voter suppression, how very republican of you
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Swing and a miss. Every vote counts equally.
I don't think some hayseed in Wyoming or South Dakota's vote should count more than forty times a California vote. And I'd bet the vaunted founders would not have thought so either. The "equal representation of the States" idea made some sense before the Civil War when it was decided emphatically that federal law trumps state law. The States, as originally envisioned and again, owing to the fact that the slave holding states had to be induced to sign on to the Constitution, were "more sovereign" during the period. Further, the distribution of the population was not nearly as skewed in 1790 as it is today where roughly one in eight Americans is a Californian. According to the 1790 census, the largest populations of free white men (the only eligible voters at the time) were in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Each had approximately 111,000. The smallest population was Georgia where there were just over 13,000. So the voters from this smallest state's vote was worth less than ten times a vote from a voter in the largest, not close to "more than 40 times."

We should change the rules because we need to change the rules "in order to form a more perfect union" in the 21st century.

It's mourning in America again.
New I would rather pay to have you and others move to california so you would be happy :-)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New It needs a constiitutional ammendment.
Those are very hard to get and this would be even more so. All the states with low populations would say "NO!"

But you're right what we have now is not fair in a presidential election.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New There's another path...

Background: Campaigns for a Constitutional Convention

Article V of the Constitution provides for two methods of enacting constitutional amendments. Congress may, by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, propose a specific amendment; if at least three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify it, the Constitution is amended. Alternatively, the states may call on Congress to form a constitutional convention to propose amendments. Congress must act on this call if at least two-thirds of the states (34 states) make the request. The convention would then propose constitutional amendments. Under the Constitution, such amendments would take effect if ratified by at least 38 states.

In part because the only constitutional convention in U.S. history — the one in 1787 that produced the current Constitution — went far beyond its mandate, Congress and the states have never called another one. Every amend­ment to the Constitution since 1787 has resulted from the first process: Congress has proposed specific amendments to the states, which have ratified them by the necessary three-quarters majority (or turned them down).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many states adopted resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to require the federal government to balance its budget every year. From the mid-1980s through 2010, no such new resolutions passed, and about half of the states that had adopted these resolutions rescinded them (in part due to fears that a convention, once called, could propose altering the Constitution in ways that the state resolutions did not envision).

Recently, though, additional states have called for such a conven­tion, reflecting the efforts of a number of conservative advocacy organizations such as ALEC, which in 2011 released a handbook for state legislators that includes model state legislation calling for a constitutional convention.[4] Since 2010, 12 states have adopted such resolutions. According to some proponents of such a convention, a total of 28 states have now adopted resolutions (and not rescinded them). Proponents have targeted another 11 states for action this year and next.[5] (See Figure 1.)


If things get bad enough, and Congress refuses to act, a Convention could be called. Ratification would still be difficult, but maybe (as with the first one, throwing out the Articles of Confederation), a new set of baseline rules could be adopted to throw out the huge roadblocks under the existing Constitution. There be dragons along that path, of course...

New Constitutional convention has the same issue the Senate does
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
     Now let's talk about a couple of things. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
         Great start. - (InThane)
         Now you are being silly. - (hnick)
         mass voter suppression, how very republican of you -NT - (boxley) - (2)
             Swing and a miss. Every vote counts equally. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                 I would rather pay to have you and others move to california so you would be happy :-) -NT - (boxley)
         It needs a constiitutional ammendment. - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
             There's another path... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                 Constitutional convention has the same issue the Senate does -NT - (malraux)

72 ms