Goodbye, Habeus Corpus

[Roark]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html?ex=1159588800&en=450b0f4670d95964&ei=5087%0A

So, military tribunals are legal, and detainees have no way to challenge their arrests in court. Harsh interrogation methods are approved, with the final say of what's right and wrong left to the president and secretary of defense. Rape, (overt) torture, and undue suffering are prohibited, but "rough mehtods" are allowable.

Can anyone recommend a country, preferably where English speakers can get by, that doens't want to trample over inalienable rights?

Oh, and warrentless wiretapping on US citizens looks likely.

[Phate]

Oh, and warrentless wiretapping on US citizens looks likely.
It still has to pass the Senate if I remember correctly, so there is still an inkling of hope. I guess.

As for the Detainee Bill, it's incredibly depressing. At least most of the senators representing my party voted against it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-v.gif

YEAs ---65 (voting for the bill)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---34 (against)
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

The 'soft on terror' bullshit that the Republicans are accusing the Democrats of because of this is sickening.

[Strife]

Politics is a tough subject and when a someone brings up something on it and voting on bills and whatnot, I always drop the same line and that is...

If you don't like how things are going, on election day for these positions, go out and vote.

See you at the polls.

[General Suburbia]

Five years after 9/11, people's fears still dictate how the laws are created.

I don't know how this will work though. Torture is probably the least effective interregation method out there - everyone spills eventually, including the innocent. Out of every 20 detainees, there are probably only 1 who have or were going to participate in an act of terrorism. The rest would lie their way out of "interregation" and make up false thoughts of terrorism just to get out.

[Zero]

Why does this sound so familiar (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1396)?

Under this president and congress, the oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is more of a slogan than anything of substantive moral value. This bill comes as no real surprise; it's more of a logical followup to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll be off to have a drink with Orwell's spectre. :bik:

[Ritalin]

Politics is a tough subject and when a someone brings up something on it and voting on bills and whatnot, I always drop the same line and that is...

If you don't like how things are going, on election day for these positions, go out and vote.

See you at the poles.

This is the correct answer. (and omg, is that really you strife?)

Don't get blinded by party lines, or vote the lesser evil (ugh 04 election), vote for who you think will do the job best at protecting a country and not trampling on rights. Instead of bitching "I'm leaving the country!" or "oh hi there Canada", which won't fix anything... get active in politics with demonstrations, protests, and of course voting.

As for this bill, it's not surprising. Warrantless wiretapping has been going on for a very long time (prior to 9/11 even) and probably never will go completely away. It isn't in affect yet and, considering Bush's approval is so low these days, one can hope people will not be pleased (I'm giving too much faith to general American public probably... all lazy in politics) and something will come of that like it used to.

Wish I had the link to the video, but Bush was interviewed (on NBC I think) and flat out said they don't agree with the Geneva Convention. :)

[Kain]

Can anyone recommend a country, preferably where English speakers can get by, that doens't want to trample over inalienable rights?
See you at the poles.
Therein lies your inadvertent answer, Roark. :)

[soundchazer]

Well... there is still hope that the law will go through the courts and can be declared unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, with people like Alito on board now, I wouldn't hold by breath.

This is pretty much a call for the dissolution of the Geneva convention and carte blanche for other military forces to torture, detain and pass judgement on American soldiers who are capture in combat without any type of law to stop them.

Way to go Republicans... one step closer to the evil empire.

[Phate]

Politics is a tough subject and when a someone brings up something on it and voting on bills and whatnot, I always drop the same line and that is...

If you don't like how things are going, on election day for these positions, go out and vote.

See you at the poles.
I don't know about any of the other 18 year olds out there, but I most definitely do vote, and registered even before I was 18 so I could make sure I would be able to vote before the next elections (which were in June for me, primaries and such).

I already know the type of candidate I should vote for, and I'm not the type to pack up and leave if I don't like how things are going; I like it right here.

Besides that, the only people I can vote into these law-making positions voted against the detainee bill. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-3.gif Feinstein is a bitch though and I wish she'd get some real competition.

[A-R@D]

This is the correct answer. (and omg, is that really you strife?)
Don't get blinded by party lines, or vote the lesser evil (ugh 04 election), vote for who you think will do the job best at protecting a country and not trampling on rights. Instead of bitching "I'm leaving the country!" or "oh hi there Canada", which won't fix anything... get active in politics with demonstrations, protests, and of course voting.


I disagree, considering that neither of the major partys in the US actually represent the best interests of the majority in my belief.

Economically I would say the democratic party fits with the best interests of the majority (being moderate economically), but both parties are too conservative socially to represent the interests of the majority.(evidience is both party's stances on gay rights, abortion, legalization of marijuana, and protection of peoples inalieble rights.)

So basically the choice is vote for candidate A who represents the policies of the rich, or vote for candidate B who represents the rich and also cuts taxesand gives breaks to the upper class and corporations at the expense of the lower class. (you make a guess as to which party is the former and which is the latter.)

The continuing voter apathy and lack of voter turn out is proof that the system itself is flawed, not lack of turnout. The lack of turnout is actually evidence that the system is not working.


The new laws regarding Haebus Corpus , taking away the rights of civilians is further proof to me that the system is flawed.

[soundchazer]

You do know that the alternative would be to have stronger independent parties with different platforms, right?

That in itself brings all other types of problems, like the inability to pass laws in congress because no majority of votes is ever achieved.

I do believe that the best way to keep parties honest is by social pressure and mobilization, not only at voting time, but at all times. A good democracy is always a work in progress, not an event that happens every two years when casting a vote.

[Strife]

Therein lies your inadvertent answer, Roark. :)

I typed it to fast and didn't think about it.

[Zelkiiro]

I've never heard of it. Therefore, it doesn't affect me personally.

That's my outlook on general politics. Learn to lighten up, people.

[Phate]

I've never heard of it. Therefore, it doesn't affect me personally.

That's my outlook on general politics. Learn to lighten up, people.
This is a joke, right?

[Zero]

The continuing voter apathy and lack of voter turn out is proof that the system itself is flawed, not lack of turnout. The lack of turnout is actually evidence that the system is not working.

...and perpetuating the system to become worse than before. Aforementioned voter apathy and lack of turnout are a byproduct of a flawed system, but not really the proper response whatsoever. To quote Ralph Nader, "pessimism has no function"; hence, as SC points out, social mobilization in the form of civic action is, and should be, the appropriate path to fixing and pushing the system foster a more just, more democratic society. To be a good citizen amounts to far more than just taking a trip to the ballotbox (though it remains a key piece).

[Roark]

I'm also somewhat of the opinion that the normal means of rectifying social injustice - voting, petitions, social activism, &c. - are starting to break down. Paid lobbyists and interest groups see more legislation passed than any social group. While speaking out and voting are still valid options, some places present the same choice that people have for internet: Comcast or SBC/AT&T. That's why I'm less likely to support "social activism" and more likely to support civil disobediance. Don't like the new airport restricitons? Have everyone bring dangerous gallon jugs of dihydrogen monoxide onto a plane for one day. Label it as such. (Don't just use H20, that's too common). Don't let police ask you for ID, ever, without the right to do so. If you vote against increased taxes to "fight terrorism" and the measure passes, send in a check for the amount less the tax. Overwhelm the legal system. You can arrest one law breaker. You can't arrest several million people without severely overloading the jail system.

[A-R@D]

You do know that the alternative would be to have stronger independent parties with different platforms, right?

That in itself brings all other types of problems, like the inability to pass laws in congress because no majority of votes is ever achieved.


I am believe that giving the people more choice in a democracy is better than staying with less choice no matter what problems it would cause. Democracy needs to grow, but I am of the belief that despite the claim that the constitution is a "living-breathing document" as all the textbooks say, it is acutaly quite an archiac and stale document. The system was brilliant when our forefathers put it together, but it is time to change the way we elect presidents (eww electoral collage), senators, representatives and govenors, as well as the rules to pass laws.

[Mailorder]

Harsh interrogation methods

You mean, freedom tickles.

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.

[soundchazer]

I am believe that giving the people more choice in a democracy is better than staying with less choice no matter what problems it would cause. Democracy needs to grow, but I am of the belief that despite the claim that the constitution is a "living-breathing document" as all the textbooks say, it is acutaly quite an archiac and stale document. The system was brilliant when our forefathers put it together, but it is time to change the way we elect presidents (eww electoral collage), senators, representatives and govenors, as well as the rules to pass laws.

Well... I come from a country were we have had 3 different constitutions and usually there are anywhere from 5 to 8 parties in any given election. Your system is light years better.

The congress in Mexico is so fragmented no laws of any relevance can be passed since no party has real majority to get them passed. Mexico has had a very stagnant congress for about 10 years now.

Again... the problem is not the laws, nor the constitution, nor the number of parties. The problem is the regular citizen is too complacent and not willing to sacrify some of their time to apply pressure on their elected officials. If the regular Joe dedicated a bit of time watching CSPAN, going to their local hearings and voting in the primaries, there would be no need for additional parties. Part of the beauty of having primary elections is that you have the chance to look for that particular candidate who most agrees with your own ideals.

Oh... and while the electoral college system can seem unfair, if the voting was by simple majority, places like California or New York would be dictating policy for the rest of the country.

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

Oh... and while the electoral college system can seem unfair, if the voting was by simple majority, places like California or New York would be dictating policy for the rest of the country.
Because of simple majority of people? I don't see the problem with that. If the majority of the citizenship happen to be on one state or another shouldn't matter. It seems that right now that citizens in less-populated areas carry a heavier weight with their vote over higher-populated states.
It seems that in the last election, proxies didn't work at all since none of those votes were even counted before the last victor was announced.
I'm probably wrong, so please correct me.

On the subject of civial disobedience, there was a ridiculous law which has been passed which says we now have to apply for permissions to protest within the parlimentary square here. The general reaction has been for thousands of people submitting applications for 1-man protests.. the processing of which should help point out some of the audacity of it all.

[soundchazer]

Because of simple majority of people? I don't see the problem with that. If the majority of the citizenship happen to be on one state or another shouldn't matter. It seems that right now that citizens in less-populated areas carry a heavier weight with their vote over higher-populated states.

They don't... it is given proportional points according to level of population. I still believe it is a more equitable system than what simple majority would for a country the size of the States.

[Ojisan]

I despise Plurality voting; it's so obviously flawed.

[Griveton]

They don't... it is given proportional points according to level of population. I still believe it is a more equitable system than what simple majority would for a country the size of the States.

Even then, it seems to me like a much more flawed system than simple majority, mainly because in the most extreme circumstances, a party could win with around 26% of the total vote in a two party system. In a system with more parties, this number would only become lower. The main problem is that all electoral college votes go to a simple party, effectively rendering useless the vote of anyone who doesn't believe in what most people in his state believe. This makes the vote of people in predominantly democrat or republican states worth much, much less than the vote of people in evenly divided states, irrespective of wether or not the points are proportional (they aren't, by the way).

Would there any problem with California and New York dictating policy for everyone in the country, if those two states represented the abundant majority of the citizenship?

Admittedly, straight-majority isn't perfect, either, but I can find no rascible explanation for using electoral votes -disregarding political spin or other superfluous reasons.

[EDIT] Holy zombies, that was some impressively bad "grammer"

[Ninja Realist]

I've never heard of it. Therefore, it doesn't affect me personally.

That's my outlook on general politics. Learn to lighten up, people.

Doesn't affect you?

Does not affect you?

I think you've been smoking a little bit too much embalming fluid because you've totally lost touch with reality. Are you so ****ing dense that you don't even realize the effect your action or inaction has on society and yourself? It's one thing to be apathetic, but it's quite another to act like your apathy has no effect on you or your world. You can be an insular ******* if you want, and I'll respect your right to have your opinion, but take some goddamn reponsibility for your actions.

It's irresponsible people like you that render the American Electoral System completely worthless.

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

I've never heard of it. Therefore, it doesn't affect me personally.

That's my outlook on general politics. Learn to lighten up, people.

Ah, the good old Osterich.

[Zelkiiro]

Doesn't affect you?

Does not affect you?

I think you've been smoking a little bit too much embalming fluid because you've totally lost touch with reality. Are you so ****ing dense that you don't even realize the effect your action or inaction has on society and yourself? It's one thing to be apathetic, but it's quite another to act like your apathy has no effect on you or your world. You can be an insular ******* if you want, and I'll respect your right to have your opinion, but take some goddamn reponsibility for your actions.

It's irresponsible people like you that render the American Electoral System completely worthless.
Hey, if I ever somehow get prosecuted for some terroristic act, I probably deserve what's waiting for me.

Qué sera sera.

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

Hey, if I ever somehow get prosecuted for some terroristic act, I probably deserve what's waiting for me.

Qué sera sera.
You forget that you don't nessesarily need to be guilty of anything to be prosecuted.

[soundchazer]

Hey, if I ever somehow get prosecuted for some terroristic act, I probably deserve what's waiting for me.

Qué sera sera.

Riiight... remember Joseph McCarthy? Did all the people who got harrased by his anti-communist campaign deserving of it?

Now imagine that not only you are wrongfully prosecuted, but also denied the possibility to challenge it, get detained for an indefinite amount of time and tortured in the process?

I'm sorry, that mental picture is something I would expect from people like Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler. The fact that is happening in the U.S. is quite distressing.

[Ritalin]

Hey, if I ever somehow get prosecuted for some terroristic act, I probably deserve what's waiting for me.

Qué sera sera.

This is the same mindset people had when wiretapping began to get more wide scale and scarily accepted by some in the public. "I have nothing to hide, sure government, listen in to my personal calls!"

Go read up on a lot of Guantanamo Bay prisoner stories. A lot of people are sent there that weren't related to terrorism at all. Or Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was sent to Syria for torture, even though completely innocent and no one had any evidence to suspect him.

Peoples lives are being ruined because of your mindset.

[Zelkiiro]

This is the same mindset people had when wiretapping began to get more wide scale and scarily accepted by some in the public. "I have nothing to hide, sure government, listen in to my personal calls!"
Wiretapping doesn't bother me at all. I'm sure the government will find out my insidious plot by listening to me talk about Disgaea 2.

Go read up on a lot of Guantanamo Bay prisoner stories. A lot of people are sent there that weren't related to terrorism at all. Or Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was sent to Syria for torture, even though completely innocent and no one had any evidence to suspect him.
If he was innocent and there was no evidence against him, who convicted him in the first place?

Peoples lives are being ruined because of your mindset.
Let me get this straight...people are somehow being oppressed because I don't care? It's all fine and good to worry about the government, but what can you do about it? Protest? Do you think the government even listens to the general public?

[Ninja Realist]

If he was innocent and there was no evidence against him, who convicted him in the first place?

That's thje whole point. He wasn't convicted. He was just detained and tortured while flying home from Tunis. He was kept in a tiny cell in Syria for almost a year, where he was beaten and thnreatened with electrocution. And after his release he wasn't given any kind of compensation by the Canadian or US Government. In fact the US Government has never formally admitted that Arar was even detained in Syria (though the Canadian govenrment has).

[soundchazer]

Actually, I heard on NPR the other day that the Canadian government offered a formal apology and was considering some compensation.

The U.S. goverment has declined to issue any apology or admittance of wrongdoing, even though the deportation to Syria was carried out by the American goverment while this guy was in U.S. soil awaiting for a flight back to Canada.

[Linuts]

Actually, I heard on NPR the other day that the Canadian government offered a formal apology and was considering some compensation.

The U.S. goverment has declined to issue any apology or admittance of wrongdoing, even though the deportation to Syria was carried out by the American goverment while this guy was in U.S. soil awaiting for a flight back to Canada.

Well, according to local news, the RCMP Commissioner made the apology. Only one MP has said anything, and even then he is supporting the Comissionor from getting fired. Arar is still in court fighting for compensation.

And according to the Comissioner, the US was notified of the false information, but Arar was still sent to Syria without reason.

[Zero]

Wiretapping doesn't bother me at all. I'm sure the government will find out my insidious plot by listening to me talk about Disgaea 2.


Apparently, the words "right to privacy" mean little these days. You may be willing to waive that right, but I'd rather not. Actually, therein lies the problem. My rights are being waived for me without any formal check to investigate cause.

Let me get this straight...people are somehow being oppressed because I don't care? It's all fine and good to worry about the government, but what can you do about it? Protest? Do you think the government even listens to the general public?

Of course they do, and I speak realistically. Any government of any sort requires some form or degree of consent in order for them to govern with the methods they use. Even a one-party state that runs on oppression to maintain its power depends upon its public to either accept, or be apathetic of (i.e. not oppose), its narrative of the political/social situation. There is a breaking point for every government in being able to stand against public pressure, whether that pressure comes as protest, basic public lobbying, or whatever other form it takes. The most worthless action is inaction, if you have any desire for positive change whatsoever.

[Roark]

Just to throw another little wrench into the debate:

The right to privacy is not guaranteed in America - not in the constitution nor the bill of rights ammendments. It's strongly implied - see "Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to bear arms, property rights, &c. - but privacy is not guaranteed by the constitution.

[soundchazer]

We would need to go to jurisprudence to see what has been defined as "unreasonable search and seizure". Of course, it doens't mean that much since laws can be overturned. I expect the now majority conservative Supreme Court to do some of that this judicial term.

[Roark]

I actually have more faith in a conservative supreme court than an overly leftist one. What would be troubling is a neo-conservative supreme court. Generally speaking, classical era conservatives tend towards extreme caution in interpreting the constitution and federal powers. This leads to stronger limitations and a greater likelyhood that laws giving too much federal power are thrown out.

That said, neo-cons are more straight economic conservatives rather than political or social conservatives. Instead of limited government, they tend towards strong central government aiding and abetting strong businesses. This is a change from small government, state power, and plenty of social freedoms.

[soundchazer]

Actually, the type opf neo-conservative judges we are getting right now are the type who put religious morals over secular government, and that is what scares me. I have no trust on Alito and Roberts to leave their own personal religious beliefs out of the equation when passing judgement.

[Roark]

It scares me as well. I read a decent number of supreme court cases back during my ethics classes, and I was amazed at how little politics or religion factored into them. It seemed more based on ethical and constitutional theory than it did on political gain or personal belief. I fear that will change.

[f1rst children]

I'm a little surprised it's taken Bush this long to get restrictions removed. It certainly didn't take 5 years for FDR or Lincoln to suspend civil liberties. History says you shouldn't count on the Court to rein Bush in either. The Justices are usually content to let the President have whatever he wants and then overturn those decisions retroactively. Easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I guess.


Would there any problem with California and New York dictating policy for everyone in the country, if those two states represented the abundant majority of the citizenship?

Admittedly, straight-majority isn't perfect, either, but I can find no rascible explanation for using electoral votes -disregarding political spin or other superfluous reasons.


Tyranny of the majority?

California: I want to dump nuclear waste in Nevada.
Nevada: No way!
California: Hey New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida and you other big population states - if you vote with me on this, I'll vote for your measure that screws a small state.

Is it only coincidence that the House of Representatives, which more closely reflects a straight majority, is the chamber that more often puts out stupid bills than the Senate?

That said, neo-cons are more straight economic conservatives rather than political or social conservatives. Instead of limited government, they tend towards strong central government aiding and abetting strong businesses. This is a change from small government, state power, and plenty of social freedoms.

The neo-cons are social conservatives, not economic. The whole Iraq ideology of "I'm doing this for your own good" is just evangelical Christianity writ large.

No traditional economic conservative would have ever blown up the federal budget to the levels that Bush has while racking up monstrous public debt, let alone garbage like massive farm subsidies, public funding of religious groups, prescription drug payoffs, airline bailouts, education spending, etc. Bringing the federal budget under control with strict spending limits was one of the key messages of the 1994 Gingrich Republicans that's been totally disregarded by the current Reagan-wannabe-on-crack. Clinton was 10 times the economic conservative Bush Jr is, let alone Gingrich.

[Zero]

Just to throw another little wrench into the debate:

The right to privacy is not guaranteed in America - not in the constitution nor the bill of rights ammendments. It's strongly implied - see "Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to bear arms, property rights, &c. - but privacy is not guaranteed by the constitution.

I'm well aware of that. However, as you mentioned, it's strongly implied among several of the amendments, not to mention that Supreme Court cases (i.e. Griswold v. Connecticut being the most notable) have essentially affirmed or supported this idea (though certainly not without controversy). Nonetheless, it's not something that be so easily thrown out of the public's political mindset, especially considering its close ties with abortion and reproductive rights as an issue that continues to drive large portions of the electorate.


On the issue of the electoral college, I've always found its worst trait to be the winner-takes-all aspect of handing over the electoral votes of an entire state to one candidate, further perpetuating the "battleground state" strategy that favors certain portions of the electorate over another. I'd personally like to see this level go proportional in handing out its votes. Not only would this force each candidate to earn every electoral vote it receives (as opposed to barely passing the plurality test in certain states), as well as further driving them to not ignore rural areas, but minority states maintain their disproportionate voice in the matter overall.

[f1rst children]

On the issue of the electoral college, I've always found its worst trait to be the winner-takes-all aspect of handing over the electoral votes of an entire state to one candidate, further perpetuating the "battleground state" strategy that favors certain portions of the electorate over another. I'd personally like to see this level go proportional in handing out its votes. Not only would this force each candidate to earn every electoral vote it receives (as opposed to barely passing the plurality test in certain states), as well as further driving them to not ignore rural areas, but minority states maintain their disproportionate voice in the matter overall.

States already have the choice to have their Electoral College votes distributed propotionally, but it makes no sense for them to do it. It would only serve to weaken the voting power of the state by reducing the number of electoral votes the winner would receive from the state. The politician would have less reason to campaign in a proportional state than in a winner take all state of equal population.

The only way the state would retain all its electoral power would be if the state voted unanimously for one candidate, which 1) is the same thing as the EC anyways; and 2) probably means that politician doesn't really need to campaign much in that state anyways.

[Zero]

States already have the choice to have their Electoral College votes distributed propotionally, but it makes no sense for them to do it. It would only serve to weaken the voting power of the state by reducing the number of electoral votes the winner would receive from the state. The politician would have less reason to campaign in a proportional state than in a winner take all state of equal population.

The only way the state would retain all its electoral power would be if the state voted unanimously for one candidate, which 1) is the same thing as the EC anyways; and 2) probably means that politician doesn't really need to campaign much in that state anyways.

True, but that only emphasizes the importance of switching to proportionate distribution nationally (as in each and every state adopt this standard). Easier said than done, I'll admit, considering States' rights and actually having 50 separate bureaucratic entities adopt a uniform system. That aside though, the weakness of proportional electoral votes stems from a refusal of one or more states (particularly those of larger population) to adopt such a system, not necessarily the system itself.

[Roark]

True, but that only emphasizes the importance of switching to proportionate distribution nationally (as in each and every state adopt this standard). Easier said than done, I'll admit, considering States' rights and actually having 50 separate bureaucratic entities adopt a uniform system. That aside though, the weakness of proportional electoral votes stems from a refusal of one or more states (particularly those of larger population) to adopt such a system, not necessarily the system itself.
The other option, rather than have national standards on this, is make the issue less severe, i.e., decrease the power of the federal government. Placing the state as the primary unit of organization, as opposed to the nation, should proportionately decrease the importance of federal elections and increase the important of state elections. If state's rights are a major concern in not standardizing the process via federal mandate, then the logic follows that states should have more power. Reducing federal power to the point of semi-irrelevancy in the elctoral college is, of course, a major restructuring of our governmental model. I personally would like more freedom and diversity in state laws, so that if I don't like a particular philosophy in one state, i could just move to the next. Misproportioned representation also becomes less of an issue, in that meaningful laws would be passed at the local, not federal level, so the concerns of California need not dictate Alaska's actions.

EDIT: Just to note, this is starting down the path to iterate my call for mirco-nations and non-contiguous states based on economics and like-minded people more than physical territory.

[Sae]

I've never heard of it. Therefore, it doesn't affect me personally.

That's my outlook on general politics. Learn to lighten up, people.

OMG i've found my TWIN! I feel the EXACT same way!! Thank God i'm not alone in the world. :scared:

Sae-chan

[Zero]

The other option, rather than have national standards on this, is make the issue less severe, i.e., decrease the power of the federal government. Placing the state as the primary unit of organization, as opposed to the nation, should proportionately decrease the importance of federal elections and increase the important of state elections. If state's rights are a major concern in not standardizing the process via federal mandate, then the logic follows that states should have more power. Reducing federal power to the point of semi-irrelevancy in the elctoral college is, of course, a major restructuring of our governmental model. I personally would like more freedom and diversity in state laws, so that if I don't like a particular philosophy in one state, i could just move to the next. Misproportioned representation also becomes less of an issue, in that meaningful laws would be passed at the local, not federal level, so the concerns of California need not dictate Alaska's actions.

EDIT: Just to note, this is starting down the path to iterate my call for mirco-nations and non-contiguous states based on economics and like-minded people more than physical territory.

Heh, almost sounds like a confederation to me. I think I hear Lincoln turning over in his grave. :p

That's a rather gargantuan restructuring you're suggesting, though I certainly understand (and to a point, agree with) your stance. I don't see such a change occuring though, or even appearing to the national consciousness of the United States, until its position as a hegemony-like power in the international arena changes, as well as the presence of a widespread domestic dissatisfaction of some sort (i.e. economic depression, national debt becomes no longer sustainable, etc). The "war on terror" and its politics at some point in the future may give rise to such a possibility, but not without public dissatisfaction reaching a critical point.

[Griveton]

Tyranny of the majority?

California: I want to dump nuclear waste in Nevada.
Nevada: No way!
California: Hey New York, Texas, Illinois, Florida and you other big population states - if you vote with me on this, I'll vote for your measure that screws a small state.

Is it only coincidence that the House of Representatives, which more closely reflects a straight majority, is the chamber that more often puts out stupid bills than the Senate?



Of course, the fact that there is over four times the amount of monkeys there doesn't affect the amount of stupid bills at all, nor is the fact that a 2 year term (in a less regarded office) makes it easier for the introdcution of a stupid law to be presented. Not to mention there are some law types (like revenue-related laws) that can only be brought to the house of representatives.

I don't really think it's a coincidence, no.

[Roark]

Heh, almost sounds like a confederation to me. I think I hear Lincoln turning over in his grave. :p

That's a rather gargantuan restructuring you're suggesting, though I certainly understand (and to a point, agree with) your stance. I don't see such a change occuring though, or even appearing to the national consciousness of the United States, until its position as a hegemony-like power in the international arena changes, as well as the presence of a widespread domestic dissatisfaction of some sort (i.e. economic depression, national debt becomes no longer sustainable, etc). The "war on terror" and its politics at some point in the future may give rise to such a possibility, but not without public dissatisfaction reaching a critical point.
It is more of a confederation. At some point, I want to take it even further: fractured states existing in a non-contiguous fashion. Franchised nations, owning bits of territory here and there.

[f1rst children]

The other option, rather than have national standards on this, is make the issue less severe, i.e., decrease the power of the federal government. Placing the state as the primary unit of organization, as opposed to the nation, should proportionately decrease the importance of federal elections and increase the important of state elections. If state's rights are a major concern in not standardizing the process via federal mandate, then the logic follows that states should have more power. Reducing federal power to the point of semi-irrelevancy in the elctoral college is, of course, a major restructuring of our governmental model. I personally would like more freedom and diversity in state laws, so that if I don't like a particular philosophy in one state, i could just move to the next. Misproportioned representation also becomes less of an issue, in that meaningful laws would be passed at the local, not federal level, so the concerns of California need not dictate Alaska's actions.

EDIT: Just to note, this is starting down the path to iterate my call for mirco-nations and non-contiguous states based on economics and like-minded people more than physical territory.

Articles of Confederation?

While I agree with you about federal power exceeding the founders' mandate (I don't think there should be federal departments of Energy or Education, among others), there is a rather sizeable obstacle in the form of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process. The 14th Amendment pretty much negates the ability to produce truly diverse laws from state to state, otherwise we'd still have states with and without segregation.