So who's everyone supporting for 2008?

BF? OMB? Does someone here have an internet nerd translator?

idk, my bff jill?

No but most of us are smart enough to figure it out anyway. We took spelling in grade school and we do the NYT's crossword puzzle. (sorry that's New York Times for you)

Not all of us run in the same crass circles that use the term "BF".

don't worry, its only sowal wench language, and its used most affectionately. consider yourself blessed.

you should really have a little more funn around here. try the lounge!

Not all of us run in the same crass circles that use the term "BF".

Unfortunately we've moved more towards a democracy since our founding. The Founders understood that subjugating the will of the minority isn't a good thing, and they agreed with me that less people should have an influence on policy.

What? This is ridiculous...

The Founders (and God, right?) set up the electoral college to make it a blend of federal (state-based) and national (population-based) elections, to mirror the two houses of Congress. They wanted to "subjugate" neither the will of the states nor the majority of Americans. The members of the electoral college were never meant to make decisions on their own.

But it is all obsolete now. The size and diversity of states' economies in the 18th century dictated the need for a federalist mentality. In fact, recent globalization has put us way past the need for federalism, and we are close to forcing nation-states in general into obsolescence.

Is geography really the best way to divide the human race into teams?

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

Short term at a higher rate than long term, since pot makes you impotent[/high school health teacher].

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

But our boy Ross was not a free trader. He was more a conservative populist.

I?m not talking about that specifically, but the Electoral College was a check on majority will. I?m speaking of the 17th Amendment, which turned Senators from statesmen to politicians, shifting accountability from their nation to themselves. And if you paid attention, you?d see that I said subjugating the will of the minority was a bad thing (ask German Jews), I never said that they wanted to subjugate the will of the majority or the states. I don?t know what is so hard about reading comprehension, but it gets some folks here sometime.

As for a federalism, you miss the point, which isn?t surprising. The importance of federalism, which the Founders recognized was what Tip O?Neill caught onto later ? politics is local. Forcing decisions down the pipeline, rather than up, produces better results, a more satisfied populace and most importantly, a more accountable government.

I know what you meant. My point is that the Electoral College was meant to a blend of majority and states wills. It was meant to give a voice to both the states and the population. The Electoral College is a relic of a disconnected age, as you seem to be.

If the politicians in Maryland can demonstrate a better way to teach our kids, then best practices should prevail.

"Politics is local" was a guide to getting elected, not governing efficiently.

No, it's not. But taking the time to explain it to you is obviously as beneficial as doing so to a Cocker Spaniel.



Serious question - are advocating central planning?

Ahhhh... isn't it fun to type your insults rather than look someone in the eye with them? It's kind of like being a little desktop satirical cartoonist, only without the humor or creativity.

No, I think I'll save my ideas for some higher discourse. Besides, explaining them to you would be like doing so to a, uh, Newt.

​

I know what you meant. My point is that the Electoral College was meant to a blend of majority and states wills. It was meant to give a voice to both the states and the population. The Electoral College is a relic of a disconnected age, as you seem to be.

If the politicians in Maryland can demonstrate a better way to teach our kids, then best practices should prevail.

"Politics is local" was a guide to getting elected, not governing efficiently.

Wouldn't you agree that given our country is increasingly urbanized, the electoral college is more relevant than ever. With a majority vote, the candidates would focus on the most populated states, and would ignore the rest.

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

Heard a rumor that Bill Clinton will be at Harbordocks in Destin in a couple of weeks - anyone know anything?

Is the opposite better? Now they ignore the most populated states because they are not in play. If our country is becoming increasingly urbanized, shouldn't the urban centers have an increasingly greater role in electing a president? Why would anyone really vote in NY and CA when they know the Dems will carry? The popular vote in 2000 would have been even more Gore if they felt like their vote was going to count. We live in a democracy, lets have a popular vote. There is enough of federalism in Congress.