quote:If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
What are those conditions? And how can we make them happen?
Oops. It turns out that Texas' right to secede is a widely believed urban legend, according to snopes.com. Texas did negotiate the right to split into 4 additional states, as needed, to balance out the number of free states when they were first admitted to the Union. They still have this right written into their constitution, but it's been specifically disallowed by Article IV of the US Constitution.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree that the electoral college has to be abolished. I understand that we're a Republic, not a Democracy, but I would much rather see the President elected by popular vote (and by that I mean that every individual's vote is counted for or against the canidates in question, regardless of what State they live in.)
As it is, living in a State that has an overwhelming majority of Republicans, my vote for a Presidential canidate often counts only as a vote of agreement or disagreement. It's hard to feel like my vote helps my canidate win if my Electors simply vote for who won the vote in the State as a whole. Did my vote actually have an impact on who wins the election? No, Not unless Utah has a HUGE paradigm shift in the next three years.
Barring the abolition of the Electoral college, I guess that I'd feel better if the Electors voted in a way that acurately represented popular votes in the state. Say, if you have four electors and 25% of the state votes Democrat, and the other 75% votes Republican, that one elector vote Democrat and the other three vote Republican. Maybe they already do this, I'm not sure.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I learned quite a bit about Canadian history in the early stages, as it pertained to American history. It drops off a bit after 1814, but Canada's governmental reforms and issues with Britain really don't matter much outside of Britain after 1814, at least not to American history.
I'm convinced that you don't really know all that much about American schools. I know about American forrays into Canada, and it was never called Canada, it was British North America, but even then, before the Rev War, it wasn't Canada either, you were only under British control for a decade or so before the Rev. War, and before that you were all Frenchman (my ancestors ). A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire. Then we created America. A long time after that, you guys created Canada.
You want to talk about arrogance? Arrogance is assuming all Americans are stupid just because they were educated in America, and that you know more than us just because you were educated outside of America. That's arrogance. American schools teach tirelessly about World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam and tons of other places where Americans fought and died. You're welcome by the way.
And no, I don't think that I personally am deserved a thank you, but jeez, of all the arrogance, assuming that Americans don't learn about other countries just because they are geographically removed from us, even when our own men have died there. You're beyond arrogant, you're downright insulting, and ignorant.
I never said you didn't learn about Canadian history. I asked if you did. And other AMERICANS told me you didn't. And I had very much assumed that you learned about other countries, but no, I didn't think you learned much about ours.
And when did I say I think all Americans are stupid because they were taught in America? I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth.
"A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire."
Yes, you're right. That is what I meant, but I should have worded it better.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, people actually wrote a lot in the time it took me to write that last post. Who'd a thunk it, eh?
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I'm not mistaken, Texas still has the power to secede from the union under certain conditions.
What are those conditions? And how can we make them happen?
Oops. It turns out that Texas' right to secede is a widely believed urban legend, according to snopes.com. Texas did negotiate the right to split into 4 additional states, as needed, to balance out the number of free states when they were first admitted to the Union. They still have this right written into their constitution, but it's been specifically disallowed by Article IV of the US Constitution.
Well, thanks very much for getting my hopes up!
And thank you for giving a more complete answer, to the electoral college, Rabbit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, I've been hoping against hope for years now that Texas would take its ball and go home, but to no avail.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but wonder what would have happened in 2000 if the tables had been turned. If Bush had won the popular vote, but Gore had won the electoral college vote.
With Republicans in control of the House and an even split in the Senate, I'm pretty confident we would have had a constitutional amendment circulated to abolish the electoral college. Since consitutional amendments must be passed by 3/4ths of the states without regard to the State size, and since there are more Red states right now than Blue states, I think that the passage of such an amendment would very likely have happened.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I can't help but wonder what would have happened in 2000 if the tables had been turned. If Bush had won the popular vote, but Gore had won the electoral college vote.
With Republicans in control of the House and an even split in the Senate, I'm pretty confident we would have had a constitutional amendment circulated to abolish the electoral college. Since consitutional amendments must be passed by 3/4ths of the states without regard to the State size, and since there are more Red states right now than Blue states, I think that the passage of such an amendment would very likely have happened.
I don't think it would have been abolished...
But I do think most of the people currently supporting it would be against it and most of the people currently against it would be for it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
Pix
So it is better that people in the cities are ignored? I don't think we saw a single presidential campaign ad in 2004.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
The electoral college worked perfectly and as designed in 2000 and I'm pretty tired of explaining this. We've covered it to death.
And just so you know, I live in a firmly blue state, my votes are constantly for the loser, which means my presidential vote is pointless. I still think the Electoral college is a good idea.
Pix
I assume you mean smaller by population. Either way, that's crap.
Tell me all about the heated presidential race in Wyoming. Or how Kerry and Bush blazed a trail across Alaska.
The electoral college does absolutely nothing for smaller states. Swing states are the only ones that get any attention, and at that, the only ones that matter are ones with high populations, which is why so much money goes into Florida, Ohio, Michigan and similar states. It doesn't even make sense in colonial format. The populations were spread evenly enough within the original 13 colonies to make it a moot point, and candidates didn't exactly campaign like they do today. In fact, campaigning back then was widely considered ill form.
Eliminating the electoral college is a good move for all. Right now people in states where it's a foregone conclusion that a certain part will win don't even bother voting. What's the point when your state went red last year by a couple million votes? Your vote isn't worth anything. On the other hand, were the college to be abolished, votes EVERYWHERE would count, meaning millions more across the country might see a point to voting, whereas before their vote would probably only be stifled by a larger majority.
Furthermore, it forces candidates to campaign in more places. They have to campaign in more states, more often and hit more population centers. There'd actually be a point to a Democrat hitting Alaska and Wyoming, or the bible belt or the plains states. They aren't trying to win the state as a whole, but all of a sudden everyone is up for grabs in a meaningful way.
It would change the nature of the campaigning process, and I'll bet you all the money I have, that you'd see the highest turnout in American history the first year we vote without the electoral college.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The electoral college exists so smaller states will have a shot at having their voices heard.
If the electoral college were abolished, candidates would split their time between NYC, LA and Chicago because that's where the votes are. Smaller, Rural areas would be ignored because they simply don't have the population.
That's a common myth. I've lived in small rural states and they get almost no attention in National elections unless they are swing states. The electoral college forces candidates to focus on swing states and ignore other states.
In the past 8 presidential elections, California has been won 4 times by the democrats and 4 times by the republicans and it currently has a Republican governor. It is a swing state.
If we went to direct election, every vote would count and candidates couldn't afford to write off any part of the country.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It had nothing to do with guts. If Adams and Jefferson had their way and an abolition of slavery were included in the Declaration of Independence, there never would have been a Declaration. The Southern colonies wouldn't have gotten on board with it, and any attempt at a Revolution would have failed. Given the choice between continued British domination, and a new country that still had slavery, they chose the lesser of two evils and worked from that moment on to end slavery, which eventually culminated in the Civil War.
Jefferson didn't work particularly hard considering that he didn't even free his slaves.
Jefferson campaigned heavily to the second continental congress to include the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Rights but was overruled the south, of which he was a part of. Jefferson's original draft included the following against the King of England: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.."
It was removed, based on the actions of Rutledge, from South Carolina. Jefferson got a measure passed in Virginia to end the importation of slaves from outside the state. And many of the slaves he owned were either his wife's, his parents', or held as a lien against debt. Yes, at the end of the day he is still a hypocrit, but to say that he didn't try to end slavery is like saying Hariett Tubman was lazy and could have done more.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing should replace it. I don't mean not telling anyone who their voting for. I just don't see a need for the Candidates to travel across the country telling everyone how great they think they are.
Rabbit, you can't eliminate the swing states problem because there's going to be an obvious preference of candidates from ones own state anyway. Therefore, getting rid of the Presidential Campaigns will make for a more efficient outcome than getting rid of the electoral college.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Cheiros, you don't understand the swing state problem. The swing state problem exists because the electoral college system is a winner take all system. Under the electoral college system, if a candidate wins in a swing state by only 1 vote, then the candidate gets all of the states electoral votes. Under the electoral college system, winning just one more vote in that state could change the outcome of the election, while winning 100,000 votes in a state like Utah would make no difference at all. In a direct elections system 1 vote in Utah would be exactly equal to 1 vote in Florida.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: CA has gone Democrat each of the last 4 elections.
The 3 elections prior to that, their former governor was running or had just been term limited out.
Did Carter not win CA in 76? I was very young then and don't remember. It seems odd he would have won the white house without CA back then.
Decades old history aside, CA is firmly in the democrat column and has been for a while. Heck, Bush came in 3rd in SF in 2000.
Our republican governor is the result of a corrupt democratic governor being recalled and the democrats running someone who belonged to an organization dedicated to returning California to mexico as his replacement. Usually such dizzying ineptitude is reserved for the CA republican party. Further, the Republican Nominee was a popular Celebrity.
The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
posted
As of the 2000 census, 79% of Americans lived in urban areas but only 58% lived in urban areas with a population over 300,000 and less than 7% lived in cities with a population over 1 million. Given those demographics, it would be impossible for a candidate to win a national election by courting only the votes in the 10 biggest cities.
All you need to do is look at what happens in the many countries that directly elect their presidents. They don't have the problems we have.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was coming to say exactly what the Rabbit just said. Your argument for the EC was once valid, but becomes less so with each passing year. The cities are at or are approaching maximum capacity, while the overall population continues to grow. Hence, the rural areas are catching up every day.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
Read my earlier posts Pix. That differences has been noted and included in the calculations. It pales in comparison to the swing state issue. Under the current system, your vote is far more valuable if you vote in a state with close elections, than if you vote in a state that is firmly in one camp.
quote:Did Carter not win CA in 76? I was very young then and don't remember. It seems odd he would have won the white house without CA back then.
Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to have posted that stat. without looking it up first? No only did Ford win in CA in 76, Nixon won in CA in both 68 and 72.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: The weight the small states get is in the way electoral votes are figured. You get 2+(some amount based on your population) so a vote in a small state is worth slightly more than a vote in a large state. Otherwise the states with the greatest population would dominate the national scene even more than they do.
Pix
Still doesn't make much sense to me. Candidates don't spend time in small states that only have 3 electoral votes when they can visit the midwest where at the least they will get 2 or 3 times that for the same effort. Larger swing states dominate the national scene, it almost doesn't matter how much they dominate when the base fact is that they DO dominate. It takes more than a dozen of those tiny populated states to match even Texas' and New York's electoral power (each), to say nothing of California's. It doesn't make much sense to say that smaller states are empowered by this system, when all a candidate has to do is campaign in California, New York and Texas, and then virtually ignore every single state that has 3 electoral votes.
If anything, the system leaves small states even more out in the cold.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, you're neglecting the fact that campaigning in the big states does little good if you're not of the right party. Texas is big time R, NY and California are big time D. So to say all a candidate has to do is campaign in those states is like saying all you need to fly is the ability to substantially change your body density.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
But by that same token, the grand majority of those little 3 vote states are solidly Republicans.
Bang for your buck, where are you going to campaign? You hit a swing state with a dozen or so votes that has even a marginal chance of flipping to your side and ignore those little guys who are A. Solidly in the enemy camp. B. Would cost much, much more if you wanted to campaign in as many as it would take to equal ONE mid sized state. It's a huge untertaking, and not just financially or physically for the candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Candidates don't spend time in small states that only have 3 electoral votes when they can visit the midwest where at the least they will get 2 or 3 times that for the same effort
Here is the issue. Let's assume, that it takes ta given amount of effort to sway one voter. Effort can be viewed in lots of ways from spending advertising dollars to sponsoring different legislation. Now suppose that you have the resources to sway 500 voters. In the two thousand elections, if you had spent that effort in New Mexico -- it would have brought you 5 electoral college votes. In order to get the same 5 electoral votes from Utah, you would have had to sway over 300,000 voters. Given the difference, there is no question where candidates are going to spend their political capital and its not in Utah. The result of the electoral college system is that the voters in states with tight margins are far more valuable to candidates.
The difference in the electoral votes/voter in small states is miniscule compared to the voting margin issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I don't think we could agree on the colour of the sky...
I did read your earlier post and while your argument seems compelling, we DO have swing states across the demographic ranging from large (FL, OH) to small (IA, NM)
quote: Do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to have posted that stat. without looking it up first? No only did Ford win in CA in 76, Nixon won in CA in both 68 and 72.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was questioning your diligence/honesty. I found the fact surprising is all.
So... Which countries specifically that directly elect their presidents are you refering to?
Come to think of it, what problems are you refering to? Non-swing states not getting love? Losers winging on 5 years later? The fact that neither party has put up a decent candidate in 20 years?
posted
Coming from a country with compulsory voting, I think a major step in improving democracy in America would be to do the same. (Make voting compulsory that is).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: I don't know, I think you are probably the most arrogant jerk here. Sure I am arrogant, but you don't see me making stupid jokes intended to hurt others.
Oh boy, well put, if anything i would be a laughing hyena.
Oh i love this:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Sure I am arrogant
Does that answer your thread?...
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, trust me, we are not jealous... Far it be from that... Just trying to point out that there is life outside of the US. I hope one day you get to explore it more and broaden your horizons.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: LeoJ, I think you migh just be jelous of the U.S., considering your nation, which was once a world empire, is now nothing.
You know that is exactly the kind of statement that causes people aroung the world to view Americans as arrogant self loving jerks.
Why should anyone want their country to dominate the world?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we sure did solve that mystery. Americans are viewed as arrogant, self-loving jerks because the rest of the world is stupid and envious and just can't admit that America roxors.
Now some might say that there never was any intention of doing anything but stating the above by the thread starter, but not me. No, I was suprised that such a fair and open minded investigation would turn up such a seemingly juvenile result, but there you go.
Now, if we could just solve the mystery of who put mud in the freezer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know it is. But if the rest of the world judges an entire population of 300 Million, soley on individuals like I, then I really can't those who do it too much. I can however, respect those who don't. So, LeoJ, I have absolutely no respect for you.
My point was, I cannot see why LeoJ so desperately hates the United States. Apparently, he thinks we Americans are dumb, arrogant( ), and live in a nation that bullies others. I have yet to ample evidence for this, and since he views us as arrogant jerks, why not act as he views us?
And yes, while I should be proving him wrong, and be a respectful, kind, and humble American, I have encountered to many people, (over the internet, that is) and been humble and kind, and respectful, yet still in the end, they say; "Your nation sucks, and you are arrogant bastards." So that is why. Does this give me the right to be arrogant and a class 1 jerk? No, it does not.
Well, seeing as I just proved your point, I shall heed your advice. Thank You...me?
Edit: Does this mean that others have to respect me? Nope, if someone chooses not to respect me,(in this thread) that is fine, now. All I want, is for my opinions to be respected.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're a bright lad. Look over that statement and look for something that might cause a bit of mental tension, like maybe an ironinc contradiction or some such. It's subtle, I'll grant you, but if you look real hard you might be able to pick it up.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statement shows an incredible amount of assumption and ignorance. If you don't know enough about US history (maybe due to a faulty European education system?), then don't attempt to speak about it with any sense of authority.
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US.
I do have high respect for the US colleges. But frankly, I still believe that a high school graduate in Czech/Slovak Republics has a better general overview than a high school graduate in the US. Our education system is pretty good!
And yet you don't know the basics of the foundation of American history. Furthermore, I'm betting it's a lot easier to learn about two and a half centuries of American history than it is for us to learn about four thousand years of European history, don't you think?
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but history isn't the be all/end all of high school education. And that really hurt to say, I'm a history major and future high school history teacher. But who are you trying to kid? You learn more about European history in Czech schools (no friggin duh, you're actually IN Europe!) and based on that you're entire school program is thus better than ours? I received a very well rounded education in high school, and very comprehensive as well. I'm sorry if we didn't spend a dozen years learning the names of all the Emperors of Rome, and all the kings of Britain, so on and so forth all of your history. But who has time, or the need for that in America?
You guys went to war with each other every five minutes back in the day, there's no way an American high schooler wants to know that, or for that matter should even need to know that.
Why should American students even learn THAT in depth about European history? You can briefly cover American history, at least all the hot spots and important parts, that don't necessarily deal with Europe, in a single semester. Why should spend years working through your long history? And that doesn't even cover Asian history, or South American history, unless it's in relation to you guys plundering and murders thousands to steal their gold in South America, or colonizing and enslaving millions in Africa.
At the very least, I'd say we're even.
Edit to add: Your bet is a sucker bet. You'll always be able to point out SOMETHING in the massive span of European history that an American doesn't know. You have 10 times as much length of time, and for that matter a dozen or more countries. It is utterly ridiculous to say that the 230 year history of ONE nation is the equivilant of the 4000 year history of an entire continent of a dozen or more nations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see it. Is it that I am judging other countries on the people I meet here? Because yes, that is wrong. If it isn't, then what?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). A better way to put it was there never used to be a Canada or an America, there was a British Empire. Then we created America. A long time after that, you guys created Canada. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Faulty European education systems? Please, don't say that! If I would be betting, I'd bet you that Europeans have more knowledge of US history than vice versa. I have my share of personal experience with American education system ignorance of the World history. But guess that's normal. You guys study in depth of your 230+ years of history, while we here study rather in depth of thousands of years of world history, including US. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), and live in a nation that bullies others. I have yet to ample evidence for this, and since he views us as arrogant jerks, why not act as he views us?
