Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Michael wrote:
"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.
Why should every state have two electoral votes just for being a state?
Where is the logic in that? We're still a republic without a Senate.
I'm not saying we should get rid of the Senate, but I am saying that we
could get rid of the 2 electoral votes per state and we'd be better off.
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.
But state's don't have equal power. Are you saying that we should just go
to a 50 electoral vote system -- one vote per state -- so that California
and Wyoming have equal power? Why? I think that sounds like a very bad
idea.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact