Which Candidate Is Better For Your Spouse's/Fiancee's Country?

[KGSodie 0]

But under a popular vote, Wyoming's votes would never count at all. So it's a compromise, and it's not perfect. But just like most of the framework that came from our founding fathers, I've yet to hear a better idea.

Why would they not count? If you counted every single person's vote individually and then the candidate with the most votes won, in effect, every state's votes would count because every single person's vote would count. The way it is now, like you said, a state with a relatively low population influences the election with it's electoral votes. If it was simply a "most votes wins" election, it wouldn't matter what state a voter lived in because their vote would be counted.

It goes back to the US being a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy. So when I talk about "Wyoming's vote," I literally mean the State of Wyoming's vote, not the individuals who make up the state, although the individual is still the underlying mechanism. Each state gets Electoral Votes equal to their total number of Senators and House members, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it...you're guaranteed 3 EV's no matter what your population is, just like Congress. As a Federalist, this should actually appeal to you, because it gives the state to the popular vote of that state instead of diluting the vote nationally. A nationwide popular vote actually goes against your Federalist ideology.

There are two states, Maine and one of the Eastern states (New Hampshire? Deleware? Maine?) that divide their EV's up based on who wins the Congressional District, and it's a system I like a lot. I think if every state did this there would be more opportunity for 3rd parties to make a difference. Which is why it won't happen. But at least it's the State making the decision as to how their EV's are counted, and not the Federal Government.

This is all academic of course. President Obama will herald in a new era of socialism. He'll replace Congress with a Duma, seize your property so he can fund abortions and mandatory gay marriages, ship your children off to Muslim madrases, and invite Secretary of State Osama bin Laden to set up camp in the Lincoln bedroom. Those of us who voted for him will be appointed Camp "re-educators." Because you didn't actually vote Slim you'll just have your guns taken away and sent to Alaska to build a bridge to Russia. Anyone who voted McCain will...er...you did see One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, right?

Actually, that other state is Nebraska, where I live!

[mox 298]

Actually, that other state is Nebraska, where I live!

Heh, I'm originally from Colorado, semi-near your neck of the woods. I should have known it was Nebraska!

Nice to see you around by the way! Stop being a stranger.

[akdiver 3]

By the way - Mox gets it.

We're not just talking about the voice of "the people". We're talking about the voice of each individual State as a sovereign entity, equal to all of the other States.

[A_I_S 0]

My main question regarding EC vs PC is this:

Why should Wyoming vote count for so much considering that it, as a population, does not contribute as much to the whole US of A? Why should Wyoming, with it's 1/20th population (pulled the number out of air) of California be able to influence to such a big degree what happens to CA as a result of national elections?

If Wyoming does not like it, then I have a perfect answer...be competitive. Attract businesses to your state which will bring more people which will in turn make your state vote count for more.

Otherwise, it's not voice of the people, it's not voice of the states. It's "your voice is less important than voice of a Wyomian" and a single voice of state of Texas is less important than single voice of Wyoming (depending, of course, on whether states do full vote or partial vote based on popular vote).

Edited November 6, 2008 by A_I_S

[akdiver 3]

My main question regarding EC vs PC is this: Why should Wyoming vote count for so much considering that it, as a population, does not contribute as much to the whole US of A?

Because of the "equal footing doctrine" - the notion that each state is an equal member of the political union, regardless of anything else. The same logic is already used with respect to congress. It's why each state gets 2 votes in the senate, regardless of their population.

[akdiver 3]

As Madison correctly pointed out, ''the Western States neither would nor ought to submit to a union which degraded them from an equal rank with the other States.'' Since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State's act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union ''on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.''

The thing that the anti-EC people don't seem to get is the States, are in and of themselves a sovereign legal entity, regardless of their population. The U.S. is NOT just "one big nation" - it is nation composed of (currently) 50 states, and each of those states exists and has a voice, independent of the people who live there.

As SCOTUS ruled in 1911, 'This Union' was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.

Edited November 7, 2008 by akdiver

[mox 298]

Pfffff...I had a long-winded answer all puffed up and ready to post, but ak your answer is absolutely perfect and better than my diatribe. Nicely done.

For what it's worth, Wyoming is about 1.5% of California's population.

Edited November 7, 2008 by mox

[A_I_S 0]

Pfffff...I had a long-winded answer all puffed up and ready to post, but ak your answer is absolutely perfect and better than my diatribe. Nicely done.

For what it's worth, Wyoming is about 1.5% of California's population.

I was afraid that was the answer.

Bah...so let's all stand up together and sing...

Союз нерушимый республик свободных...

[sj5 4]

My USC spouse told me this, "McCain is good for my wallet so I can hand extra $$$ to you for your shopping addiction"

[slim 1,514]

A nationwide popular vote actually goes against your Federalist ideology.

How so?

Because you didn't actually vote Slim you'll just have your guns taken away and sent to Alaska to build a bridge to Russia.

At least I'll be able to buy another gun in Alaska.... you remember who's the governor up there, right?

And just for the record, there won't be a time in American history when private ownership of arms is abolished. Without the 2nd Amendment, there's really no need to have any others.

The thing that the anti-EC people don't seem to get is the States, are in and of themselves a sovereign legal entity, regardless of their population. The U.S. is NOT just "one big nation" - it is nation composed of (currently) 50 states, and each of those states exists and has a voice, independent of the people who live there.

As SCOTUS ruled in 1911, 'This Union' was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.

Even in 1911 the FED wasn't what it was today and each state still had a lot of power. Today, the system established by the Constitution has outgrown it's usefulness because of it's sheer size. The federal government of today was not what the founding fathers drew up. It's a combination of what's become after years and years of electing the lesser of two evils.

My USC spouse told me this, "McCain is good for my wallet so I can hand extra $$$ to you for your shopping addiction"

Exactly why my wife gets mad when I shout "Barack Obama, Barack Obama!" I think she can see her bank account dwindling away to nothingness.

[akdiver 3]

Even in 1911 the FED wasn't what it was today and each state still had a lot of power. Today, the system established by the Constitution has outgrown it's usefulness because of it's sheer size. The federal government of today was not what the founding fathers drew up. It's a combination of what's become after years and years of electing the lesser of two evils.

Um, no. The system established by the Constitution is about the same. The system established OUTSIDE the constitution is what has grown in size. The solution is to reduce government to its constitutional mandate, not simply ignore the constitution.

Many dictators throughout history have, at one time, determined that their country's constitution has outgrown its usefulness.

[mox 298]

A nationwide popular vote actually goes against your Federalist ideology.

How so?

Go back and read akdiver's freaking awesome posts about the equal footing doctrine. I can't sum it up any better.

[sj5 4]

A nationwide popular vote actually goes against your Federalist ideology.

How so?

Because you didn't actually vote Slim you'll just have your guns taken away and sent to Alaska to build a bridge to Russia.

At least I'll be able to buy another gun in Alaska.... you remember who's the governor up there, right?

And just for the record, there won't be a time in American history when private ownership of arms is abolished. Without the 2nd Amendment, there's really no need to have any others.

The thing that the anti-EC people don't seem to get is the States, are in and of themselves a sovereign legal entity, regardless of their population. The U.S. is NOT just "one big nation" - it is nation composed of (currently) 50 states, and each of those states exists and has a voice, independent of the people who live there.

As SCOTUS ruled in 1911, 'This Union' was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.

Even in 1911 the FED wasn't what it was today and each state still had a lot of power. Today, the system established by the Constitution has outgrown it's usefulness because of it's sheer size. The federal government of today was not what the founding fathers drew up. It's a combination of what's become after years and years of electing the lesser of two evils.

My USC spouse told me this, "McCain is good for my wallet so I can hand extra $$$ to you for your shopping addiction"

Exactly why my wife gets mad when I shout "Barack Obama, Barack Obama!" I think she can see her bank account dwindling away to nothingness.

What are the differences having wife and paying highier taxes?

Edited November 8, 2008 by SJ

[akdiver 3]

What are the differences having wife and paying highier taxes?

My wife can spell.

Pfffff...I had a long-winded answer all puffed up and ready to post, but ak your answer is absolutely perfect and better than my diatribe. Nicely done.

Thanks (:

Go back and read akdiver's freaking awesome posts about the equal footing doctrine. I can't sum it up any better.

Thanks again (:

[slim 1,514]

Even in 1911 the FED wasn't what it was today and each state still had a lot of power. Today, the system established by the Constitution has outgrown it's usefulness because of it's sheer size. The federal government of today was not what the founding fathers drew up. It's a combination of what's become after years and years of electing the lesser of two evils.

Um, no. The system established by the Constitution is about the same. The system established OUTSIDE the constitution is what has grown in size. The solution is to reduce government to its constitutional mandate, not simply ignore the constitution.

Many dictators throughout history have, at one time, determined that their country's constitution has outgrown its usefulness.

Let me make it clear that I don't think we should disregard the Constitution and I'm in agreement that the Federal govt. should do it's job and ONLY it's job. The system established by the Constitution didn't include a lot of the things it includes today. There are several bureaus, departments, services, etc. that I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Constitution. Do you?