Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2014, 08:45:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College  (Read 87418 times)
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #150 on: February 04, 2010, 10:36:27 pm »
Ignore

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 10:40:00 pm by OFKA Governor Vepres »Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #151 on: February 04, 2010, 10:42:40 pm »
Ignore

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38823
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: February 04, 2010, 10:54:25 pm »
Ignore

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.

What? Because I have the influence I deserve in some bodies, that makes it reasonable for me to be denied equal influence in another?

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #153 on: February 04, 2010, 11:32:57 pm »
Ignore

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California? California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

Quote
Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8542


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: February 04, 2010, 11:41:18 pm »
Ignore

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.

That's an issue with the Senate rule, not the federal system. In principle, the House could have a supermajority cloture rule.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38823
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: February 05, 2010, 12:15:46 am »
Ignore

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California?

Given the nature of the American city, I essentially never interact with poors. I certainly haven't interacted with a poor in 2010. On the other hand, take this interaction: I, a rich from California, am interacting with you, a rich from Colorado.

California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

This is true, but irrelevant. The Senate does not legislate on behalf of either state.

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Citizens FROM social classes vote, because citizens of social classes are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my provincial government has huge mandates imposed by a central government in Berlin? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from the lower classes imposed a policy on us because it made them look good in their group, but harmed mine. Social classes deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the central government, yet one pays taxes for their income, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

Congratulations, we have an argument for Prussian democracy. The fundamental issue with this argument is that it assumes that the right to participate in a democracy comes with the payment of taxes, which I contest.

READ THIS

But let's go with your tax-based reasoning. It's fine if you don't want a policy imposed by big states. But you shouldn't expect to be protected by a military funded by taxes from big states. If states have an equal say in how money is doled out, they should bear an equal share of the load. You can't have 7.441 times more influence than me by force of population unless you also pay 7.441 times more taxes than I do.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27962
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #156 on: February 05, 2010, 01:20:22 am »
Ignore

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

An economic based republic is as workable as any other, though ideally it should not just be based on taxes, but also expenditures.  If I pay $50,000 in taxes but receive $60,000 from the government, should I be more deserving of ten times the representation of someone who pays $5,000 in taxes but receives $1,000 in government income?.  I'd say not.  (Such a system would effectively eliminate most voting by senior citizens who receive Social Security.)
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38823
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: February 05, 2010, 01:42:00 am »
Ignore

Of course it's feasible, but I don't think that it's morally right.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: February 05, 2010, 04:32:28 am »
Ignore

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

Let me ask you a different question.

Illinois used to distribute seats in the Illinois Senate seat equally to every county, although that was eventually declared unconstitutional.

How is that different than granting equal representation to each state at federal level?
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30399
United States


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: February 05, 2010, 04:53:57 am »
Ignore

Illinois used to distribute seats in the Illinois Senate seat equally to every county, although that was eventually declared unconstitutional.

You mean to say that they found a problem with two state senators representing as many citizens as every other senator combined?

Well sir, I for one am shocked.
Logged



Real America demands to know.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #160 on: February 05, 2010, 02:59:37 pm »
Ignore

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Now, my argument, put, well... better Tongue

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people. A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately, and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38823
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: February 05, 2010, 09:23:05 pm »
Ignore

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Your anecdotal evidence and mine are worth about the same. Anyhow, this tangent is getting entirely unrelated, so let's abandon it.

Now, my argument, put, well... better Tongue

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Do you not understand this?

Underrepresentation in some areas combined with adequate representation in others is still net underrepresentation.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You know what? I don't care about that. I believe that everyone should have a vote counting the same. End of story.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #162 on: February 05, 2010, 10:49:51 pm »
Ignore

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

LOL I'm 16 dude, even a poor 16 year-old has time to burn Tongue

Quote
Now, my argument, put, well... better Tongue

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.

You don't understand that my arguments are philosophical and not political Wink

Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

Quote
A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

Quote
As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately,

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

Quote
Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

Quote
You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence. The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

Oh, and you believe it equality and democracy and stuff, but I recall you calling voters idiots on multiple occasions.

Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31382


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: February 05, 2010, 10:59:54 pm »
Ignore

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.

That's an issue with the Senate rule, not the federal system. In principle, the House could have a supermajority cloture rule.

So it's democratic for Wyoming to have as much representation as California in the Senate?
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #164 on: February 05, 2010, 11:09:40 pm »
Ignore

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it Smiley
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: February 06, 2010, 07:43:36 am »
Ignore

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it Smiley

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions Wink
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: February 06, 2010, 07:45:10 am »
Ignore

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #167 on: February 06, 2010, 01:35:35 pm »
Ignore

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it Smiley

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions Wink

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you Roll Eyes

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2010, 01:41:21 pm by OFKA Governor Vepres »Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56357
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #168 on: February 06, 2010, 02:00:11 pm »
Ignore

Why even have people represented at all? Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58782
India


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: February 06, 2010, 02:18:53 pm »
Ignore

Why even have people represented at all?
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56357
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #170 on: February 06, 2010, 02:21:14 pm »
Ignore

Why even have people represented at all?
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.

It tends more to be several different groups of self-appointed wise men...
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58782
India


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: February 06, 2010, 02:29:34 pm »
Ignore

Why even have people represented at all?
Because they'll feel better thinking that.
Quote
Why not have all decisions made by a small and self-appointed group of wise men who know our interests better than we ourselves do?
They are.

It tends more to be several different groups of self-appointed wise men...
...although there is considerable overlap between the groups.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: February 06, 2010, 03:05:22 pm »
Ignore

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it Smiley

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions Wink

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you Roll Eyes

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #173 on: February 06, 2010, 05:24:06 pm »
Ignore

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it Smiley

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions Wink

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you Roll Eyes

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?

I understand that, and I don't care.

The states deserve representation IMO.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22009
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: February 06, 2010, 06:27:43 pm »
Ignore

Then we have no reason to continue debating here.

I disagree that states deserve any representation whatsoever on principle.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines