Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] the electoral college

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> "Every thing equal" -- every state equal, right?  So California with 
> about 36 million and Wyoming with 1/2 million, start out with the same 
> representation and that is considered OK.  California has 72 times as 
> many people as does Wyoming, but Wyoming gets one representative and 
> California gets 53 representatives, not 72.
So you're proposing we throw out the republic part of being a democratic 
republic and just start voting for everything directly? The US is a 
federation of states which are much like countries in their own right. 
The US is not a huge mish mash country and should not be because without 
structure it'll collapse. Each state represents it's citizens and should 
have equal power to vote in national elections. If your man in 
California wants more pull in a national election he is free to move to 
Wyoming.

If anything is wrong with our country it is A) a two party system and B) 
lack of enough representative divisions. I think breaking into purely 
geographic divisions is a concept that, while easy, is not enough. It'd 
be handy if we could have governing bodies organized around certain, 
small, concepts which we could vote to represent us in a given election 
and then let them vote on individual issues and representatives for us - 
especially if we had a voting system that would let us divide our vote 
among multiple choices. It'd be a lot like having lots and lots of small 
parties with very defined purposes and one of the many voting systems 
that lets you divide votes. Call it meta-voting maybe.

I for instance would be able to define my votes as 20% supporting 
personal freedom, 20% personal responsibility, 20% against IP controls, 
20% pro-business, and 20% pro-socialism. I'm not quite sure what that'd 
result in but it'd be a pretty accurate selection of how I lean 
politically. Other people might choose to vote pro or against abortion, 
immigration, farmers rights, etc. Probably each concept might have more 
than a single micro-party representing it and you might choose one over 
another based on how well that micro-party has matched your feelings in 
individual issues in past elections.

I also think the office of President needs more real power. It seems 
everything real is handled by the judicial or legislative branches of 
the government while the executive branch has been neutered a little to 
much. The point of an executive branch IMO is to have someone, of a 
single mind, in charge that can give the country direction even when 
that direction isn't popular at a given time. The executive branch 
should provide order while the legislative branch provides chaos to keep 
things balanced. The judicial branch seems it mostly exists to play referee.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion