God Bless Our Troops!!!
Graduated voting part Deux The electoral college as we know it is a joke.
Here is my proposal...
Counties and parishes have been established for as long as their have been people in the USA. They are pretty much set in stone as for boundaries.
What if each county had one electoral vote to cast. It would better represent the country geographically and would make make for a really interesting election map.
It would also show where the power hungry were when unincorporated areas start trying to become counties in bid for a power grab.
FESTUS
IN OMNIA PARATUS
| |  |
Definitely among the better proposals that have been floated. The counties provide a much better reflection of the way people actually vote than the Electoral College delegates or the State results. Serious consideration needs to be given to the problem of Gerrymandering.
At this link:
2008 US Presidential Election Results - Texas - USATODAY.com
You can select a state and see results broken down. It lends support to the ar gument that our current system doesn't work well ...
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam
Seems a good idea and I certainly don't mind participating in these kinds of exercises. Here is the heart of the matter: we're coming at this exercise from the premise of what's good for the country and a free people. So, why aren't politicians having these discussions? Answer: The vast majority of them are in it for what's good for them, at least their re-election purposes. It's why we need to have "citizen legislators". Matter of fact, did the Founders even use the term - "politician"? Because it implies a person who makes a living from politics. It's why these exercises aren't going anywhere except our own edification.
Sorry for the rant and I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade. Again, I DO like these discussions. Always something to learn.
Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"
How about you postulate a change based upon your concerns. Rather than worry who can or cannot vote, move on to who can or cannot hold office and for how long. Be sure to look at the situation in states with term limits where the parties in control just move a politician from a term-limited office to another where they will continue to vote the party line. Our problem is a government without limits to control its excesses; I'm sure there are many ways to approach the problem. I'll look forward to reading more about your concerns and ideas to help rectify them.
And I like it when someone rants while making sense. It's both entertaining and informative.
Originally Posted by JJFlash
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam
*
With computers in use today I would rather go back to popular vote. This way every vote counts.
+1 Our founders were "statesman" and understood that by taking care of the people they too would be included in that. today we have as you say politicians that care little if at all for the people and focus on their own survival and re-election.
I remember, lo those many years ago, taking Political Science 101. Opening class, the instuctor says "Politics is about POWER", not money, but power. Keeping in mind that the power is supposed to reside ultimately in the people, we have a real clash of ideology going on here. The politicians want the power but We the People are supposed to wield it. Obviously, thru the generations, The People have abdicated their responsibility to retain the power and we've been paying the price for that abdication. What to do? What to do?
We need to GET THE POWER BACK, however that has to be accomplished. Restore the voting privilege to its rightful place among the citizenry who drive the system (as opposed to those who leach off it), establish term limits (i.e., re-create the citizen legislator), and my newest proposal: ensure gridlock by mandating that the House and Senate cannot be held by the same political party. Democrat or Republican, I don't care. Gridlock helps to ensure that Congress remains divided and weak and accomplishes very little in the way of legislating substantive new law. At the least it would help to prevent the "party tyranny" we're witnessing, now.
Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"
When gridlock is the case in government we are much safer than when 'bipartisanship' is going on.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam
What is the definition of 'bipartisanship'? Getting the shaft from both sides?
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
HK, you're not going to believe this. I looked bipartisanship up in Webster's and that's EXACTLY what it said!
Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
