Summations Only

Says a has-been toad in a little blue vest. I'd be more than a little perturb to find the smooth four-lane highway I was traveling on suddenly switch into a single-lane dirt road upon crossing county lines... ... and I'd be equally perturb to find out that my Federal government didn't have anything better with which to concern itself than how comfortable my Thanksgiving drive back home was.Seriously crash...I didn't think your outlandish ignorance could get any worse than it already was, but seeing what you are proposing here really has me questioning that think.Though I guess nothing ridiculous you say should surprise me anymore.JonABE: If you want to talk more about this, I think we should set up a separate thread for it. You can do it or I will. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Crashfrog argues: Must respectively disagree. Even State government can't handle the regional stuff. When I was a Regional Planner, it was obvious that the locals towns could not coordinate planning optimally. Perhaps Crash might want to look into the field of Ekistics. If he has a degree in the subject, I could waver here - but I am not aware of such an educational background in Crash...

You understand that I'm not actually a frog, right? That the image beside my posts is not a self-portrait? It would be, but why would it? Roads are exactly the sort of thing that is properly a matter for national authority. Why should the roads be different just because you drive on them from Minnesota to Iowa? Yet you drove home on Federal Interstate 35, probably. Or maybe Federal Interstate 94. I did all the time, when I lived in Minnesota. But I guess knowing about the Federal Eisenhower Interstate System - and you not having heard of it, apparently - is more evidence of my "ignorance."Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

That's my point. Nothing is appropriately a state-level matter. It's either inherently local - an issue of circumstance related to conditions experienced only by a single locality - or inherently general - an issue faced by all communities. States only handle issues - like roads, for instance - because we artificially divide those issues up, hand them to the states, and say "ok, you handle this, but only for these randomly-selected geographically-proximate Americans and not these others."I dunno, maybe you have to live in a city like DC to understand how fucking stupid that is. There's no purpose to having states.

Because the Federal government has better things to worry about. Ironically, management of the Interstates is within the hands of the individual States through whose land the Interstates cross. I wouldn't be so sure about that...JonABE: Continue here: Message 1Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Absolutely right. Obama one because he promised minorities 'things'Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism - 404 Not Found

It is not the same as everything else. The method is unique to picking the pres and vice pres.The issue as has been discussed here before is that adding in the number of senators distorts the weighing. If that were not done, everyone's vote would count about the same. More populous states would still get more electoral votes than less popular votes but proportionate with their populations. As things are now, empty states get more than their population proportionate share of electors.One might argue that the senate is even further out of kilter than the electoral college. That is true. But it does not justify the distorted weighing of the electoral college.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by make representation proportional for each state. If it means splitting electors, there is still the problem that states with few citizens get too many electors.

Hi NoNukes That is what Maine and Nebraska do. Why is that a problem? This is due to giving states representation, as intended by the framers of the constitution, so that they are marginalized by the tyranny of the majority.Enjoy.

Except that with proportional splitting it does not do any such thing does it? Unlike the case in the senate, we only get one president at a time. Over emphasizing the smallest states when we use proportional voting just means that some people's vote counts more than others. But that does not mean that those folks are right, does it?State representation makes some sense in the Senate because a faction can stop bad legislation from passing as long as they get a reasonable number of senators on their side. How would justice have been served by making up some goofy coalition that allowed a minority of the population to pick the president. The majority would then have no representation at the executive level.

Along with gradually changing each state to distribute their electoral count by the voting shares, you could also just triple the Representative contribution to the electoral total by state and leave the Senator contribution as is. While not perfect, it would reduce the Wyoming Effect. So now Alaska would have 5 electoral votes, while California 161. Since California's 161 would be divided according to the way the voters there voted, California would no longer enjoy the Big Enchilada status it has now. And Ohio might get a break from the mediots every 4 years.Or double them, if tripling is too Extreme. Also, make this tally grow with population. Currently there are 438 Representives for some 350 million citizens, some of which are able to vote (others being too young yet). That's about 800,000 per Representative. In other words, the number of electors each states gets is Population/800,000 + 2. In my scheme, this jumps to some Population/266,000 + 2 for each state's electoral contribution. Then every census, adjust each state's electoral college portion from Representatives by this 266,000 rule. Keep the 2 Senator part to assuage the Confederate State mentality.With 1414 total electoral votes, the discretization works out to be a finer grained resolution of about 247,525 population per electoral college vote.But perhaps we also need to require that the total be an odd number? Round to the nearest integer each state's population/266000 count plus the 2 Senators and add them up. If odd, all set. If even add one more to the biggest (California today).Or even better, just skip the rounding off - making it floating point arithmetic. Population/266,000 + 2 = electors going to the electoral collage. Apportion this decimal point number by the percentages of each candidate. We can handle decimal places in these modern times.Maybe fix it to P/250,000 + 2. Then when the US population is 350 million, the total electoral college is 1500.00. The total number of Representatives would be roughly 350,000,000/750,000 = 467, slightly up from the current 438. Each Representative would be representing about 750,000 population. Each Senator would still be grossly at variance with a uniform representation and allow the small states to have their say.

The reason for increasing the multiplier is to offset the distortion created by adding in the extra two electors. Why would anyone with a 'Confederate Mentality' go for this? Totally unnecessary. Just changing to proportional representation (without the extra two electors) should be enough. Of course the result would be to emphasize an urban v. rural political divide.

I was trying to find a recent, still open thread, that was relevant to this article from the american thinker website. This is the only one that fits the bill. I know that this article talks about things in a broad, and generalized manner, and from experience here, that is what you guys will seize upon. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but I feel the general trend that this guy talks about is right on the money.http://www.americanthinker.com/...ormity_of_our_problem.htmlBy Daren JonescuEdited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

So in summary what is the problem the world faces and what is your solution to it?I'm intrigued....

It isn't the problem the world faces; it is the problem philosophical conservatives face. The article is talking about the type of life conservatives enjoy living is rapidly going away and the chances of it ever coming back are slim. The "Our" is the title is referring to philosophical conservatives. That is the audience that the website is geared toward.