Repos trying to stack the deck in California - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #16 09-25-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

I feel your pain... same goes for the great state of Chicag... er, Illinois.

Especially when you consider that the population centers in question would quickly die off if it weren't for the rural portions of the state(s) that supply them with food and water.

Allright, [/whine]

And now for something completely different:

cscmc1 · #17 09-25-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Especially when you consider that the population centers in question would quickly die off if it weren't for the rural portions of the state(s) that supply them with food and water.

You're preaching to the choir, bro...

Kuan · #18 09-25-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Yep, you're right. Ultimately, I guess the rest of the country would get to experience whomever the large population centers decide to elect whether or not they agree; as we in Ca. do now.

Only because the fed. gov. is involved in too many things.

WANT '71 280SEL · #19 09-25-2007, 05:07 PM

gerrymandering has been around for ages, what's the problem?

Remember, U.S. senators were chosen by the state's house of representatives (or is it senate). This country was intended to have everything focus around the states, which is where the founding fathers were the most confident it could remain uncorrupted. They were weary of large federal governments, therefore U.S. senators would be chosen by individual states' H.O.R. (or senate, can't remember). Interestingly, this was changed because of corruption on the state level where U.S. senatorial candidates would "buy" their votes.

Thanks
David

P.S.
Leave the E.C.

Larry Delor · #20 09-25-2007, 05:34 PM

It's a good ole boys club, and they are going to keep screwing us, all the while telling us how great things are because they got elected.

I have news for them....It is not going to work a whole lot longer.

tankdriver · #21 09-25-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catmandoo62

whats wrong with just dumping the electoral votes and leave it up to the common people.the candidate with the most votes wins!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I do agree that the Electoral college is a relic from the past and should be abolished.

The purpose of the electoral college is to mitigate the common people. IIRC, George Washington was not elected by popular vote. There's a reason the Constitution doesn't specify a popular vote for President.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ I wish all of the states would do that. It would increase the viability of 3rd parties.

How so? CA's thing is by Congressional district. Districts are drawn by Dems and Reps in the state government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WANT '71 280SEL

This country was intended to have everything focus around the states, which is where the founding fathers were the most confident it could remain uncorrupted. They were weary (wary. sorry, pet peeve) of large federal governments, therefore U.S. senators would be chosen by individual states' H.O.R. (or senate, can't remember). Interestingly, this was changed because of corruption on the state level where U.S. senatorial candidates would "buy" their votes.
.

The founding fathers wanted a strong federal government. That's why they threw out the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution with no authority to do so.

Botnst · #22 09-25-2007, 06:09 PM

^^^ The smaller the constituency, the greater the diversity of opinion. Greater diversity of opinion is EXACTLY what the major parties do not want -- they maintain power by appealing to the average among all voters. This is why the speak in partisan terms in the primaries and soothing platitudes in the general election. In the primary election they are trying to motivate their own party, not both parties.

I'll bet the majority of voters in a general election hold their nose when they vote -- they don't give a crap about who they are voting FOR, they fear whom they are voting AGAINST.

By allowing a diverse group of electors you allow a greater array of possible votes.

For example, in my particular district there are a large number of libertarian voters. I'll bet there's a good chance that if people could vote by district that at least one elector from my state would vote Libertarian. Would he get elected? No. But it would be one vote NOT going to Republicrats and that is a victory of a sort. It might even grow from there.

Ross Perot, had he not been batty as hell, could have been elected president.

t walgamuth · #23 09-25-2007, 07:49 PM

I think he had a chance til he pulled out.....then got back in.

Folks lost all faith in him at that point.

Tom W

peragro · #24 09-25-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ The smaller the constituency, the greater the diversity of opinion. Greater diversity of opinion is EXACTLY what the major parties do not want -- they maintain power by appealing to the average among all voters. This is why the speak in partisan terms in the primaries and soothing platitudes in the general election. In the primary election they are trying to motivate their own party, not both parties.

I'll bet the majority of voters in a general election hold their nose when they vote -- they don't give a crap about who they are voting FOR, they fear whom they are voting AGAINST.

By allowing a diverse group of electors you allow a greater array of possible votes.

For example, in my particular district there are a large number of libertarian voters. I'll bet there's a good chance that if people could vote by district that at least one elector from my state would vote Libertarian. Would he get elected? No. But it would be one vote NOT going to Republicrats and that is a victory of a sort. It might even grow from there.

Ross Perot, had he not been batty as hell, could have been elected president.

What you're wanting is a parliamentary system, not a bicameral one.

Botnst · #25 09-25-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

What you're wanting is a parliamentary system, not a bicameral one.

Certainly not. I want devolution of power to the lowest possible constituency for representative democracy. It's still bicameral legislative with separate executive and judiciary. I just don't like the way the Republicrats have stacked the deck against any other parties being able to gain political power.

cmac2012 · #26 09-25-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

However, is anyone really surprised that one of the two major parties is trying to tweak the system to serve their interests?... I thought everyone realized that such events are commonplace for both the big parties!

I do agree that this is an obvious attempt by the Republican party to tip the odds in their favor in the state. Democrats would be feverishly supporting it too, if they thought it would better THEIR chances of election/re-election...

I'm not surprised the Republicans are doing it. Who knows why exactly, but it's my take that the Repos are leaning more towards dirty pool than the demos at this time.

Have you heard of a concerted movement by Demos to achieve a permanent majority? Are there Demos trying to pass a measure similar to this one in any of the blue states? And why has there been so little press about the apparent fact (I'm not there to witness it in person) that in the current congress, Repos have filibustered to a degree that puts previous demo filibustering to shame?

The Limbaugh/Hannity wall of sound which tirelessly blames any and all difficulties in our land on demos and liberals has spearheaded this trend, IMO.

I'm trying to think if there have been any other gubmints, or factions therein, in the last 100 years who considered themselves the supreme nation and who blamed other groups in their nation for all of the ills besetting them.

cmac2012 · #27 09-25-2007, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Especially when you consider that the population centers in question would quickly die off if it weren't for the rural portions of the state(s) that supply them with food and water.

And the rural peoples would get their tractors from where? And don't tell me they can farm w/o them. They're not going to, in the foreseeable future.

BTW dude, is that albatross around your neck starting to stink? You repeatedly ask a question with an obvious answer, and when I give you the answer like giving a lollipop to a child, you think you've made some great breakthrough or painted me into a corner.

Uno mass, por favor: no one is arguing that our way of life yields greater prosperity and liberty for its citizens -- the debate is about how to best interact with the rest of the world so as to minimize resentment and foster healthy evolution in places mired in backwardness.

Most all of our attempts to do it at the point of a gun have not worked too well.

Jim B. · #28 09-25-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I'm not surprised the Republicans are doing it. Who knows why exactly, but it's my take that the Repos are leaning more towards dirty pool than the demos at this time.

Have you heard of a concerted movement by Demos to achieve a permanent majority?

I'm trying to think if there have been any other gubmints, or factions therein, in the last 100 years who considered themselves the supreme nation and who blamed other groups in their nation for all of the ills besetting them.

The Karl Rove strategy. It only worked for awhile. It is coming apart now.

cmac2012 · #29 09-25-2007, 10:47 PM

Thank God for small favors, eh?

Palangi · #30 09-25-2007, 11:34 PM

Maybe the Republicrats should try the old fashioned methods, like registering everybody in the cemetery. That kept Mayor Daley in office for decades. Oh, wait, he was a Democan, wasn't he?

Then there's that Mary Poppins thing from last time.

Point is, either party would lie cheat and steal to get elected. Shocking, I know....