T
TMC
Guest
Well, there is that whole “democracy” thing, which I know you are not a big fan of.
Can our democracy survive if most Republicans think the government is illegitimate?
- Status
P
PaulinVA
Guest
We can go around and around on this until CAF shuts down.
The state of California isn’t more important. There are just millions and millions more people living there. They’re being shortchanged in the representation department in one house of Congress at the very least.
And yes, I know the Senate represents states, blah blan blah.
Last edited:
S
sallybutler
Guest
Because it has more people and makes more money for the country??? Just a thought
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Just a good place for a snarky comment about the red states certainly don’t turn down California’s tax money which flows to them.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Could someone explain how it works in Nebraska? They have proportional electorates but I have no idea how it works there. Is that a more fair system or just the same only different YKWIM?
How would the electorate votes have looked under their system?
How would the electorate votes have looked under their system?
It is absolutely fair, because it is fair to have the states determine the president of the republic, a republic that was created by the sovereign states. These are united states. They aren’t provinces of a large central government.
Therefore, the EC is democratic and absolutely fair.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I believe two votes go to the state winner and each congressional district winner gets one vote.
B
billsherman
Guest
It’s only democratic and fair if you think geography should have a say in how much your vote counts.
Some do, some don’t.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I guess it is fairer for Kansas than it is for California 
Maybe Californians should elect Republicans who will lower their tax rates.
It has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with sovereign states who are part of a federal republic and get to decide who is the chief executive of the republic they created.
It is democratic and fair because each one of those sovereign states chooses democratically who their electors are.
What it isn’t is authoritarian majoritarianism.
California has, 55 electors. Kansas has 6.I guess it is fairer for Kansas than it is for California
Please. California is not aggrieved in the electoral college.
But a Californian can always move to Kansas if they want 6 electors instead of 55.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
FEDERAL taxes. Maybe the red states should become self sufficient.
Have them elect Republicans to lower FEDERAL taxes.
I am all in favor of article 1, section 8. Are the leftists in the California delegation?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
You don’t get my point. Blue states pay more into federal income taxes than return in federal projects/money. Red states get more back from the government that they pay in federal taxes.
So, lowering taxes would be possible if the red states didn’t need so much.
T
TMC
Guest
I think its safe to say that the some that do are mostly those that are gaining an advantage from the current system.
That is correct. Two votes to the statewide winner (almost always Republican; LBJ in 1964 was the last Democrat to carry Nebraska) and the winner of the popular vote in each of the three Congressional districts receives a vote. Obama in 2008 and Biden this year won the Second Congressional District which includes Omaha.
Maine has the same system.
Last edited:
Suudy
Active member
Indeed. They didn’t want a national referendum on federal offices. They didn’t even want statewide referendums on senators. The goal was to have the states represented in the senate and the people represented in the congress. A balance of power between the states and the people.
Genius really.
Only if they elect people who impose taxes. Don’t impose taxes you don’t want to pay. Don’t elect people who vote for projects you don’t want to pay for.
See the first part of my response.
Of course. Repeal all of the spending that is not explicit in Article 1 section 8. States will figure out what to do.
Last edited:
- Status