From: cubby77267@aol.com
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 05:19:54 GMT, Greg Heilers
wrote:
>Loki wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:22:46 GMT, Greg Heilers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Loki wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:06:53 GMT, Greg Heilers
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Loki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, a "state" is only a block of land if you take away the
>>>>>> citizens. And when you take the citizens into consideration, the
>>>>>> electoral college gives, as pointed out above, greater weight to the
>>>>>> say of some of the citizens than to others. And personally, as a
>>>>>> citizen of California, it pisses me off that my say in who gets chosen
>>>>>> as President only counts about a third as much as that of an Alaskan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loki
>>>>>
>>>>>So, does this mean, that it bothers you that the political weight
>>>>>of your Ms. Boxer, and Ms. Feinstein, is not worth more than the
>>>>>political weight of the two Senators from Alaska?
>>>>
>>>> We are not discussing the Senate though but rather the Electoral
>>>> College. If you cannot stay on topic, perhaps I have wasted enough
>>>> time on you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Loki
>>>
>>>We were discussing the concept of the weight of your vote, being in
>>>proportion to the population of your state. Each of your Senator's votes,
>>>in issues on the Senate floor, is of no heavier weight, than the votes
>>>of each of Alaska's Senators. This is *exactly* the same concept as
>>>the state representation facet of the Electoral College. It is all part
>>>of the *same* topic. It is "checks and balances" between those who
>>>advocate political power based solely on population distribution, and
>>>those who advocate equality between state identities.
>>
>> Fine. My vote for Senator counts as much as any other Californian
>> voting for Senator. My vote for Representative counts as much as that
>> of anyone else in my district.
>>
>> As long as the Electoral College remains in place the same cannot be
>> said of my vote for President.
>>
>>
>> Loki
>
>But...your Senators' votes in the Seanate, are worth the same weight
>as those of the Senators' from Alaska. Ms. Boxer and Ms. Feinstein
>represent your state, and therefore, indirectly, you. The same with the
>Alaskan Senators, and the people of Alaska. In a Senate vote, that deals
>with a policy/program/bill that affects California; the people of Alaska
>have the same vote-weight as the people of California; despite having
>probably 1/100th the population. And the Legislative Branch is where the
>*real* power lies. That is where the policies that actually affect you,
>come into existence, and come to pass. So, if you are concerned that your
>vote in the Presidential election, is being short-valued...then why does
>your concern not extend to the Senate?
Because of the power and the function of the Senate versus that of the
President. Were the Senate, or the House to only come together once
every 4-6 years and vote on one topic I would feel differently.
If you read a little history, you will realize that the Electoral
College was a compromise which satisfied no one from the very
beginning. Some of the framers of the Constitution wanted the
President chosen by Congress, others by popular vote. Since neither
would give into the other group, they came up with the electoral
college. From it's inception it was regarded as a second rate choice
by all involved, but a necessary evil. It was at one time somewhat
functional when there was no TV or radio, very few newspapers and a
largely illiterate populace. A time when voters chose informed
electors to represent them when the time came to choose a President.
However, those days are no longer.
The Electoral College, as well as denying citizens of large states the
same vote per person to choose a President is also obsolete and
unnecessary.
Loki
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
