|
| Thread: URGENT --Americans (and others) PLEASE READ THIS!!! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted October 06, 2004 08:17 PM |
|
|
To Consis:
To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand your point/question. So I can only guess at your meaning.
Quote:
If we americans have already voted for our respective senators....and electoral representatives
We've already voted for senators, but not the electoral representatives. We don't vote for electoral representatives at all, they've already been pre-selected by their respective parties. We only vote which way the state will go.
Since I'm only guessing at your meaning, I'll leave it at that and let you respond or clarify.
I was wondering if you would show up in this thread, because I wanted to ask about the right-to-die issue. What do you think about this? And what do people in Oregon think in general? Not the right-to-die issue, but the state autonomy aspect of it.
For those not familiar with it, this is a perfect example of what I've been saying about state autonomy. Oregon passed a citizen initiated law legalizing doctor assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients. This was voted on and was the will of the people. The federal government didn't like it and tried to force their will on the state of Oregon by overruling the law.
To Ratmonky:
That's interesting, I didn't realize our constitution was being copied. I'll point out though that our constitution was largely based on the British form of government. The British form of government was based on earlier governments....going all the way back to some of the earliest civilizations. We (generic we) simply take what we know about and changes as needed. In modern times it's easy to observe every country in the world, and analize the merits of their system, both good and bad. So it only makes sense that any country modeling their constitution after ours would attempt to improve on it. After all, you've had a chance to observe the reality of how it works, as opposed to the "theory" of those who originally wrote it. Later in history other countries can observe how your "theory" worked out in reality.
BTW, do you have any specifics as to what is so imperfect about our constitution? Is there anything which has not been ammended you think is really bad?
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 04:34 PM |
|
|
Nice topic. During my stay in US, I had this very same discussion with a professor who teaches American Law at Towson Uni. And he too admitted there’s no logical reason as to why they still keep the College. It’s like handling a cold already molded piece of steel with pliers. Occasionally it slips.
To answer what kind of electoral system would fit the best for USA, one must first clear what the USA really represent.
Back then, when the Electoral College was first introduced, people viewed the US as alliance of more or less sovereign states with the common interest in certain narrow limited fields. Binabik explained the historical reasons for such an absurd legal creation very well.
However, today the USA is rather different than 2 centuries ago. Also, the federal government has undergone some changes. Nowdays the USA is practically a unitary country with a much decentralized government. There are no political rivalries between states and their autonomy is preserved primarily in the function of effective governing. Moreover, the federal government enjoys power which is not to be underestimated, and has a large-scale influence in the daily lives of citizens.
Federations are usually formed when the authonomy of constituent republics is of great importance, and in the effect of maintaining the cultural, and often linguistic identity. In the USA, there are generally no state bound cultural differences. Consequently there are no conflicting state-based interests concerning the authorizations of the federal government. Instead, the party division presents the more important drift, as in all unitary countries.
So, what would the role of such an obsolete body as the Electoral College be in a country where the difference between political perspectives is not based on the local inter-state level?
The answer imo would be: None at all.
“How best do we give those ranchers fair representation?” Binabik asked. I think the best representation to ranchers, rednecks and other “alternative” ways of life was given when you elected George Bush for President. So there, you succeeded in authenticly representing those groups for the past 4 years. 
On a more serious note, there’s no reason whatsoever to give privileges for smaller states, since different ways of life are not limited to the various states, but they are all over. If you really feel like that’s necessary then make a law giving them two votes instead of one.  There’s no point in allowing some 10,000 people in a smaller state directing the lives of another 600,000 simply because… I really don’t know why one would want to do that. Oh, and no, these “ways of life” arent an example of those different cultures I was talking about. And saying “Howdee” instead of “Hallo” doesn’t account much for a linguistical difference also. American culture is uniform compared to other countries, and if really some undemocratic measures would have to be taken in order to spoil the elective process I would rather go with giving the Native American districts more “weight”.
Finally, the real reason behind the Electoral College (and a really nasty one), imo would be the unconditional maintenance of the two-party dictatorship, instead of allowing alternative currents to even get a chance of saying what they think.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 05:42 PM |
|
|
Svarog --
I agree with the general premise of your post. When the electoral college was originally set up the culture of the country was very different than it is now. For the most part, the reasoning behind the arrangement rests in the same school of thought as the "equal footing" doctrine, which stands for the proposition upon entrance into the union, each new state's ability to participate and have influence is on "equal footing" with the already established states. Both concepts represent the "intended role of the states as repositories of legitimate authority in the federal scheme..." See, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, No. 82-1913 and No. 82-1951 (U.S. 1984). (Sorry I don't have the complete site).
However, as you point out, a lot has changed since the formation of the union and the process of adding new states. The American culture, while still definitely variant from region to region, is much more unified and has melded into a true union. (Regions more accurately represent the cultural variations, not states.) I think that history has led to a more unified entity which thinks of itself as such.
And with respect to the presidency, it is the symbol of representation in the highest office for each individual citizen. One of the effects of maintaining the electoral college is to foster a feeling of diminishment regarding one's own vote; a kind of a feeling of disenfranchisement. In a heavily weighted state, either republican or democrat, the members of the side that is clearly on the losing end of the stick feel somewhat helpless and tend to figure, "what's the use?' My vote isn't going to count anyway since the other guy is clearly going to win my state." So they are more likely not to vote.
Since voter participation is a growing problem attending the complacency in this country, I think it would be a political shot-in-the-arm to re-involve voters if we did away with the electoral college system altogether. Involving the constituencey in the presidential election process then naturally draws them into the system, and they are more likely to vote on other issues, and participate in primaries and the rest of the process in general.
Granted, maintaining the electoral college system is an option for each state to choose or disregard. My own state now has a referendum on the ballot to do away with it. But the problem is that only a few states have successfuly done that. In any stolidly republican or stolidly democrat state, the likelihood of success for those wanting to change it is not very high, since the ones trying to gain an individual voice are the underdogs. The majority will prevail since the existing system works to its advantage.
Therefore, I would support a federal constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college system and create a system that more consistently represents the voice of the people. The states, as members of the union, would continue to be represented by the Senate in the lawmaking process.
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 06:51 PM |
|
|
 binabik
well maybe the word "copying" is not the right one, but many ideas and concepts were borrowed from the U.S. constitution (for example the separation of power between executive, legislative and judical branches, etc.). i think that the amendments have fixed most of its faults, so i can't really point out any fault now.
peacemaker and svarog
i enjoyed your posts, but i want to say the following. if the electoral college is abolished then the USA will have to face new and bigger problems. i have already mentioned a few in my previous post in case of direct elections.
Quote:
First of all a lot of falsifications may occur during the elections, while in Electoral College the falsifications are virtually impossible. Besides, the Electoral College identifies the winner very quickly, while it takes longer to decide the winner with direct elections. It must also be mentioned that Direct Elections are ideal for smaller countries, while for bigger countries it creates many problems. For example, the cost of presidential campaigns rises steadily and then the candidates must spend more time campaigning in every state, while with Electoral College, they campaign only in the states, which support them.
So the choice is yours, just make sure u choose right 
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 07:11 PM |
|
|
Ratmonkey -- good discussion. I have a couple of questions.
How is it that you can say that falsification in the electoral college system is virtually impossible? Remember 2000? What about my post above detailing the myriad manipulations being perpetrated in the process of the current campaign? What in your mind would be different in a direct election that would make it more susceptible to manipulation?
Second, why do you think it would take so much longer to tally the votes in a direct election? Each vote had to be counted to derermine the state outcome as well.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 07, 2004 08:16 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 7 Oct 2004
|
Binabik And Others,
Look here for current thoughts and concerns on Oregon support of what we call, "Death With Dignity":
http://www.dwd.org/
And look here for the answers to your question Binabik:
http://www.clarion.edu/thecall/v79/i7/rrpsa.htm
I refuse to comment on this specific topic in these forums. There are many young persons here whom I believe need not be thinking about such things at this point in their lives.
Now I would like to address my earlier question. Binabik was the only one to attempt an answer. Perhaps it is because I was confusing in my earlier post.
I simply want to know what other americans think. I want to know why we have a popular vote, in your own opinions. If this vote does not affect the presidential election then, again, I ask why you(any american) think we have a popular vote.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
wow, in the usa you actually have to register to be able to vote? how does it work? at my country it is automatic (assuming you have an address - you live somewhere)
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 10:07 PM |
|
|
Looks like I'm several post behind again.
Good posts Svarog and PM. It's not fair though, noone's allowed to make good points in opposition to mine.
As I've stated before, I'm not opposed to direct presidential election. I also admit that my support of the college is idealistic to some degree. But it's not entirely idealistic and I realize the reality of things. On the other hand, there's a side of the issue that is easy to overlook, and some people have never even considered. I'm trying to present that side.
Svarog, as PM pointed out, there are still significant differences in culture in this country. I'm originally a mid-westerner (Ohio) who lived in California for 12 years. When I moved back here it was 99% due to cultural differences. I also met a LOT of mid-westerners out there who hated it and turned around and moved back home. I've traveled this country extensively and lived in, or spent a fair amount of time in, nine states as an adult. There are definitely a lot of cultures in this country. Yes, there is a lot of commonality also. And no, it doesn't change as soon as you step foot across the border, But generally speaking, the differences exist.
Quote:
There are no political rivalries between states
Tell that to all the southerners who are still pissed off about the civil war. There's still a surprising amount of animosity about that. And what about Texans? They are Texans first and Americans second.....the "pride of Texas" and all that. Or my good friend I grew up with in Ohio. He lived in Texas a number of years and later moved to N Carolina. When asked where he was from, he'd always say he moved from Texas. He'd never admit to being a "damn Yank". If he admitted it, they would have been polite, but it would have taken much longer to blend in.
Or even me. In California when I'd tell people I was from Ohio. They'd say, "Oh your from the east". I am NOT from the east, I'm from the mid-west. I would actually get defensive about it.
In California, "Americans" are not even a majority any more. Hispanics are now a plurality there, and huge portions of them are recent immigrants. And California is, by far, the most populous state.
That's much more than I wanted to write about the cultural thing. But even most Americans who haven't traveled much aren't aware of it.
Svarog: Aside from the cultural side, I think even in practice there is much more political and legal separation between the states than you realize. The vast majority of laws governing us are at the state level, not federal level. Sure, many of the states have similar laws, and even copy other states if their laws prove to be effective. But there are a lot of dissimilarities also. But the most important thing is that the states have the right to make their own laws, and this is true in practice. The courts are the same way, most are local and federal courts are limited to specific types of things.
Very few laws concerning individual citizens are made a the federal level. Most at the fed level are either commercial or what would be considered infrastructure. Of course many of those laws can and do affect individuals, but more indirectly.
Quote:
I think the best representation to ranchers, rednecks and other alternative ways of life was given when you elected George Bush for President
That's funny. In the early 70's when I was a long-haired hippie hitch-hiking around the country with a pack on my back, I had quite a few beer bottles thrown at me by redneck cowboys....whistling at me, calling me a girl, threatening to shave my head. I'd usually flip them the bird (but not when they were looking, I would have gotten my *ss kicked). Where'd you learn the term "redneck" anyway? Did they actually teach that in school?
Quote:
Finally, the real reason behind the Electoral College (and a really nasty one), imo would be the unconditional maintenance of the two-party dictatorship, instead of allowing alternative currents to even get a chance of saying what they think.
I don't see how the electoral college has any effect on that whatsoever. Every candidate, no matter which party, has the same number of electoral votes. The socialist and libertarian parties have the same number as the republicans or democrats. If they win the state, they still get all the electoral votes for that state. It's a vague memory, but I was thinking the socialists actually won once, maybe in New Hampshire or Vermont.
Your turn PM. I hereafter forbid you from making such good arguments against me. Your point about disenfranchisement is good, and also true. Do you agree that much of this is psychological and they have never even considered, or are even aware of, the side I've presented. Do they think about the fact that the majority of things affecting their lives are at the state and local level. Do they think about the fact that the president is just one person and has very little power domestically. When they give the president credit/blame for the good/bad economy, how many of them can point to one single thing the president did/didn't do to effect the economy.....Bush's tax relief?.....sure it has an effect on the economy, but it's completely insignificant.
You called the presidency a symbol. Sure it's a symbol. The president is someone to point the finger at. He's the "whipping boy" to take the blame for all the nations woes. The president has a lot more power on the international front, both by Constitution and in practice. In this particular election, we've got a mess in Iraq as a major issue. Not to diverge onto another subject, but when it comes to election, at all levels of government, the issues are almost entirely domestic. But what real power does the president have domestically? As far as things which affect our lives, the power of the president pales when compared to other levels of government....with the state and local governments having the largest impact.
Sure, we all want the "whipping boy", but that's psychological and human nature. I also don't think it will change. But what I think is critically important is that, when discussing these issues, people don't become reactionaries basing opinions on emotions and things easy to understand and grasp. There's a bigger pictures here. We shouldn't simply look at the presidency, we need to look at the entire system of representation and government. What is the best way to put all these pieces of government together? How do we maintain some type of balance of power? After all, that's what we're talking about is balance of power. Balance of power doesn't mean everybody gets to choose which "whipping boy" we get to throw tomatoes at. Balance of power means the entire system, considering federal, state and local governments.
If people become disenfranchised, it's largely emotions and lack of knowledge about the system as a whole. Even for those who understand the system, the one side is so much easier to grasp than the other, so we migrate in that direction. That's perfectly understandable. But when discussing something like a Constitutional amendment we can't spare that luxury.
____________
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 10:33 PM |
|
|
Ratmonkey:
Quote:
(for example the separation of power between executive, legislative and judical branches, etc.)[/quote
That concept goes back way further in history than the United States
Quote:
i think that the amendments have fixed most of its faults, so i can't really point out any fault now
Yay, we're perfect. better make it two smiles
One problem with forming something like a constitution is that it needs to be specific enough to be effective but consider things which may seem obvious, but aren't.
Example: In the United States it actually required a Surpreme Court rulling that the US Constitution also applied to the member states. The first amendment gives us freedom of speech. It did not explicitly state that freedom of speech extended to the states. This left it open for states to outlaw the freedom. As in, you are free to call the president a butthead, but not the state governor. To the writers of the Constitution, it was only assumed as obvious. To my knowledge, there was never a challenge to this, but it took a court ruling to clarify. Good thing common sense prevailed.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 07, 2004 11:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I refuse to comment on this specific topic in these forums. There are many young persons here whom I believe need not be thinking about such things at this point in their lives.
You even bringing it up is enough to make people think about it. I personally find it degrating that you would even say something like that. Basically you don't think young people are mature enough for the topic. Am I right?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 08, 2004 01:31 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 7 Oct 2004
|
**Sigh**
I give up. I was simply trying to assert that given how we know no government in the world to be perfect then those in power must be held accountable under the same law of governance that the people create for themselves. That was my whole point with the popular vote question.
I believe it to be a good reminder that we have much work yet to do. Our system is not anywhere near perfect therefore we should automatically always look to a form of, or system of, checks and balances. I believe the popular vote is there to remind us, in our presidential election time, that our system is still flawed and needs reform.
The people may choose a powerful representative(what I call the president or presider) but this in no way should ever diminish the authority of the good of the many. The needs of the few(those that seek violent disagreement) will inevitably be led to seek foreign residence in my opinion. This is my view of humanity and the need for the individual as an ideal.
We consistently see the needs of the powerful few vocalize over the voices and uniqueness of the minority majority. I believe the minority majority are people like myself who simply want to live life and enjoy a simple living. "I think we should live simply so that others may simply live."(can anyone guess who said that?)
Wolfman,
I apologize if I offend you with my remarks. I do not intend such. I highly question debating such issues as "The Death Penalty" and "The Right To Die(assisted suicide/euthanasia)" with such young persons who've yet to see what life is truly like outside the protection of their legal/biological guardian's(') watchful gaze.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 08, 2004 03:28 AM |
|
|
Binabik,
I’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate right now, or you really believe in the effectiveness of the Electoral College. Anyway, I tried to write a shorter post as possible, so in a way I was expecting the exact remarks you made on my points. My mistake. I should have clarified those sentences more.
OK. What I meant when saying there are no significant cultural differences in US, was the fact that there are no different ethnic/cultural groups striving for statehood or cultural autonomy. Those are usually the reasons why a federation is formed and maintained. Such was the case in XVIII, when the American colonies each had their own political autonomy, and weren’t ready back then to submit to a joint government, so provisions in the Constitution were made that allowed these states to maintain their independence, if I may say so. And then the Fairy Godmother created the Electoral College, as part of those provisions.
Such an example is the EU also, where each country fights to maintain their sovereignty (mainly because they are countries of different nations), and most likely the EU Constitution will be the product of such tendencies.
No matter how much you speak of the autonomy of the states in USA, it is a simple matter of fact that there are no strong feelings concerning the limitation of state autonomy in the federal frame. Otherwise, one would expect separatist movements to start taking momentum in US all over, which is not the case with the vast majority. (I’ve heard of the pride of the southerners; even about such separatist movements for independence, but its an isolated group of wackoes)
You cannot speak of a cultural representation referring to the sportish rivalries the type of Ohio vs. California. Now, don’t tell me the people from Ohio will be oppressed if they arent adequately represented in the federal government. The sense for American unity is strong today. We’re not talking about a set of nations anymore, but about “one nation, under god…” and so on with your Yankee junk.
In addition, I fully realize the legal separation between states, and the completely different laws they practice and make. However, the national identity resides within the US borders, not the state borders. And while the civil laws often play a lot more important role on a day-to-day basis, the federal government is the one determining the general direction of the country. While you’re right that many people see the President as their “whipping boy”, I think you strip him from his responsibility too much. How can a decision for going into war not affect the country? Also the fiscal policy is handled on federal level, isn’t it? Health, wealthfare and education, the general guidelines for these are also decided on federal level, right?
As such, the President holds an important position, not only for the citizens of USA, but just as important for the entire world community, since US is the key-player in world affairs currently. Hence, there should be absolutely no doubts for his democratic credibility to lead the country. Under the Electoral College, a system where it’s theoretically possible a candidate with fabulous 75% popular support to lose the race, this is not always the case.
And what do you mean you don’t see how the EC has any effect on third party candidates? Arent you familiar with the “Anyone but Bush” parole? People know in advance that third-party candidates don’t stand a chance against the big guys, so they just vote for the lesser of the two evils, instead for the candidate they would normally support, in order not to waste their vote. This doesn’t give third-parties and independents even a clear view of exactly how many people support them. Who knows how many votes Nader lost, due to this practice? Maybe even enough to be a President?!
This catch (to win a state, instead a proportional representation) is consciously made so that it keeps the two mainstream parties in the focus, and alienates all others.
In the end, we have a system which does only harm, has long outlived its usefulness and tends to elect Bush as President. Such a system is tumor for the democracy, and should be removed as fast as possible.
Now look what you made me do? Made me write another long post without giving anything new, other than what I already said.
Quote:
That concept goes back way further in history than the United States
I think Voltaire first mentioned it [the triple division of government), but it was first effectively implemented in USA.
PS: redneck. What makes you wonder where i’d picked that word from?
Not school for sure, but if i was to learn only words from school, my vocabulary would be poorer than my wallet.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2004 10:36 AM |
|
|
You're right, we're starting to repeat ourselves.
Quote:
I’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate right now, or you really believe in the effectiveness of the Electoral College.
I've already stated that I'm not against a popular vote. But I "prefer" the electoral college system. Even though I may not be adamant about it, I think it's important that the case be presented. So not devil's advocate.
Do I think the system is effective? Yes, to a degree. In the larger states, it's little more than a token. But it especially helps the less populous states, and there are a number of them which benefit from it. The state of Wyoming effectively has it's representation tripled (from 1 vote to 3). But when you look at the ratios, it has very little effect on California. The 2 votes that Wyoming "borrowed" from California only decrease California's representation about 3.5% (from 57 to 55 votes).
BTW, the tripling of per capita representation for Wyoming is the same as their representation in Congress. That's true of every state. With the electoral college, their vote for president is exactly the same as their vote in Congress.
Quote:
a system where it’s theoretically possible a candidate with fabulous 75% popular support to lose the race
I knew it couldn't be that lopsided, but got curious and calculated the actual numbers. The source was some government site for the number of electoral votes and a recent atlas for the populations.
Absolute worst case:
Candidate A gets 100% of the vote in the 39 smallest states plus the District of Columbia.
Candidate B gets 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states.
Candidate A wins with 46.53% popular vote carrying 78% of the states plus DC
Candidate B loses with 53.47% popular vote carrying 22% of the states
This assumes 100% voter turnout. (and that my logic and a few hundred button presses are correct) I really should double check it, but it took too long to do.
With popular vote a candidate can theoretically win by running in 9 states or 18%, and not even be on the ballot in the other 41 states, while the opponent is on the ballot in all 50 states. The eight largest states plus Minnesota contain slightly over half the population.
Quote:
Also the fiscal policy is handled on federal level, isn’t it? Health, wealthfare and education, the general guidelines for these are also decided on federal level, right?
I'm not very well versed on these. Welfare, yes, largely federal money and very general guidelines. State contributions probably vary considerably, but I think most is federal. Health, not sure, but don't think so. There's quite a bit of oversight of drug companies. As for doctors, hospitals, etc, not sure either. I think it's largely private industry with self regulation by the AMA. I'm not even sure how much say the state has. Education, as far as I know the feds have very little say in the matter. Politicians love to talk about it, but I'm not aware of a single federal law regarding education, although there probably are some. With funding, I was thinking the federal contribution is a small percentage. It's mostly state and local funding and varies considerably from state to state and locale to locale. The state dictates minimum requirements for graduation. Through high school, education is pretty much a local service, much like the police and fire departments. Aside from the state minimum requirements, the locality determines everything else. There is a lot of disparity. Parents often move to live in a district with better schools for their kids. At the college level, I'm not aware of federal oversight or direct funding, but there probably is both. They provide a fair amount of grant money for students and research grant money to the university. The state probably provides considerably more funding than the feds. There are also two-year community colleges which are partly funded locally. Someone else could address all this much better than I could though.
Quote:
And what do you mean you don’t see how the EC has any effect on third party candidates?
Just that. I don't see how it has anything to do with third party candidates. Yes, the green party is at a serious disadvantage, as are the other third parties, but not because of the EC. The EC treats them all the same. My very first presidential election I voted for a third party I knew nothing about as a vote against the two party system. I think the two party system sux badly, but I don't think the EC is the cause, or even a contributor. What am I missing?
BTW it was announced a couple days ago that Nader didn't make the ballot in Ohio. He didn't get enough signatures by the deadline. He may have gotten started late. He could never win anyway, even if he were on the ticket of a major party. He has too much negative stigma attached to him, almost to the point of being a joke.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 08, 2004 06:07 PM |
|
|
binabick:
thanks for you kind words. It's nice to see that there's at least one other old hippie in this place, apparently even older than I am LOL!!!
Quote:
One problem with forming something like a constitution is that it needs to be specific enough to be effective but consider things which may seem obvious, but aren't.
Example: In the United States it actually required a Surpreme Court rulling that the US Constitution also applied to the member states. The first amendment gives us freedom of speech. It did not explicitly state that freedom of speech extended to the states. This left it open for states to outlaw the freedom. As in, you are free to call the president a butthead, but not the state governor. To the writers of the Constitution, it was only assumed as obvious. To my knowledge, there was never a challenge to this, but it took a court ruling to clarify. Good thing common sense prevailed.
United States Constitution: Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Fact is, any state law that contradicts the federal scheme will be declared unconstitutional and be overturned.
Quote:
I'm not very well versed on these. Welfare, yes, largely federal money and very general guidelines. State contributions probably vary considerably, but I think most is federal. Health, not sure, but don't think so. There's quite a bit of oversight of drug companies. As for doctors, hospitals, etc, not sure either. I think it's largely private industry with self regulation by the AMA. I'm not even sure how much say the state has. Education, as far as I know the feds have very little say in the matter. Politicians love to talk about it, but I'm not aware of a single federal law regarding education, although there probably are some. With funding, I was thinking the federal contribution is a small percentage. It's mostly state and local funding and varies considerably from state to state and locale to locale. The state dictates minimum requirements for graduation. Through high school, education is pretty much a local service, much like the police and fire departments. Aside from the state minimum requirements, the locality determines everything else. There is a lot of disparity. Parents often move to live in a district with better schools for their kids. At the college level, I'm not aware of federal oversight or direct funding, but there probably is both. They provide a fair amount of grant money for students and research grant money to the university. The state probably provides considerably more funding than the feds. There are also two-year community colleges which are partly funded locally. Someone else could address all this much better than I could though.
Wow, man. You've got some homework to do! Please permit me to "kibbitz" a bit here. First, let me just point out that the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), generally covering literally thousands of topics ranging from beef quality standards to pollution control to commerce, transportation, agriculture, space travel, education, and commuinications, is hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pages in hundreds of volumes that would fill an entire wall of bookshelves floor to ceiling (assuming you include the Federal Register, that is.)
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=252023351232+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Quote:
Welfare, yes, largely federal money and very general guidelines. State contributions probably vary considerably, but I think most is federal.
The quidelines governing welfare are several hundred of the topics comprising several thousand of the pages of the CFR.
Quote:
Health, not sure, but don't think so.
The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing houses a five-storey building in the middle of downtown Denver, and employes around five hundred individuals who administer the federal Medicaid program locally, serving literally millions of recipients (including all from homeless to large, multi-billion dollar nursing homes). One of the largest and most incomprehensible portions of the CFR addresses the administration of this multi-billion dollar program. For the most part as I recall, the state must comply with this program under very specific guidelines in orfer to receive federal "matching funds." (See, Titles 1, 21 and 42 of the CFR.)
Quote:
Education, as far as I know the feds have very little say in the matter. Politicians love to talk about it, but I'm not aware of a single federal law regarding education, although there probably are some.
Four words: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. See also,
Title 34 of the CFR (Three volumes).
Quote:
With funding, I was thinking the federal contribution is a small percentage. It's mostly state and local funding and varies considerably from state to state and locale to locale.
More later with the data on the multi-billions of dollars the federal government budgets for education, how dependent on, and and heavily regulated by, the federal government education is.
Quote:
At the College level...I'm not aware of federal oversight or direct funding, but there probably is both.
Well, as for funding, there is one hell of a lot less under Bush. Cuts in college funding was one of the biggest gripes early on in his administration from what I recall.
|
|
ratmonky
Famous Hero
Abu Hur Ibn Rashka
|
|
posted October 08, 2004 06:22 PM |
|
|
i apologize for my previous post. i must have been asleep as i didn't find anything better than to post that tautology. i didn't even read what i had quoted so sorry PM for that little confusion. i'll probably post again on this thread in two days, i'm too busy and tired to do anything now
____________
Dies illa, dies irae,
Calamitatis et miseriae.
Requiem aeternum
Dona eis, dona eis Domine.
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2004 03:15 AM |
|
|
PM
Who you calling old? ....bones creak and pop.... Don't know who's older, but a few years don't matter to us old foggies anyway. Ha, twenty years don't even make much difference. I always consider the end of the era to be the late 70's when....cough cough, gag....d-i-s-c-o happened....excuse me while I go barf...
Anyway, Article VI
The thing about the ruling is something I've heard multiple times. I can't guarantee it's accurate, but I believe it. Consider the fact that no matter how clearly something is written, someone will find an alternate interpretation. I can see other interpretations myself in the article. So a "let's make this perfectly clear" ruling may have been in order. Maybe someday I'll look it up to find the if, when and where of it.
Quote:
Wow, man. You've got some homework to do
I admitted to lack of knowledge. I don't do homework, never did, never will, not even in college. I'm not a facts and figures type of person. I didn't mention you by name but I figured you'd be the "someone else [who] could address...." I fully expected you to tear me to shreds
Medicaid: Yea, but that's only indirect. Would you agree that regulatory aspects of this are only coincidental? Medicaid funds specific groups of people, but it's purpose is not regulatory. Sure it has an impact on healthcare...money rules. Picture this scenario. If it should somehow happen that everyone in the country had enough money/insurance for healthcare, how much influence would the Feds have then? (I'm sure you'll enlighten me......man, I shouldn't even be in this part of the discussion....I'm only showing my ignorance)
Quote:
Four words: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Normally I would have considered this nothing but "four words". And that's all I knew about it. Recently a friend of mine in the education industry mentioned he thought it was an effective program. He only mentioned it in passing, so I still know nothing about it, nor how much impact it has on the overall education system.
Quote:
more later with the data on the multi-billions of dollars the federal government budgets for education, how dependent on, and and heavily regulated by, the federal government education is.
Yea, inform me, I'm curious...not too much detail, just generally speaking. It's always hard to picture "billions of dollars" when spread throughout the country. I'm still thinking the federal contribution is minority compared to state and local.
Quote:
Well. as for funding, there is one hell of a lot less under Bush. Cuts in college funding was one of the biggest gripes early on in his administration from what I recall.
Is this direct funding to the universities, or funding in the form of grants? I have no idea if the feds provide any direct funding, although I suspect they do, but a minority funding. That's why college tuition varies so drastically from state to state. If federal money were a majority, I don't think you'd see as much variation. Unfortunately I live in one of the most expensive tuition states in the country.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted October 09, 2004 04:35 AM |
|
|
I only mentioned federal role in those areas, to make a point that fed government is hell one important thing. And i didnt even think about financing, but general regulation, which is more important. (it really is a matter of effectiveness only, whether the taxes are paid to the state or federal government) For example, the decision whether USA will have a Scandinavian type wealthfare nad health care system, I imagine is up to the federals to bring.
Quote:
Absolute worst case:
Candidate A gets 100% of the vote in the 39 smallest states plus the District of Columbia.
Candidate B gets 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states.
Candidate A wins with 46.53% popular vote carrying 78% of the states plus DC
Candidate B loses with 53.47% popular vote carrying 22% of the states
Absolute worst case? Not really. This is only showing the difference in ratios of voter representation per EC member. I thought we had this clear, but I see now not quite.
The single most flawed aspect of the EC system is the fact that the candidate who wins a state, gets to represent all the voters from that state in the EC, even those that hadnt voted for him. This means that it’s really irrelevant whether it’s a photofinish or a certain 100% victory – the winner gets all the votes. Thus, the representation in the EC ending to be totally undemocratic on a national level. This is also why the system presents a restriction to third party candidates, with the EC as part of the electoral process.
The difference in the number of voters each member represents is only a marginal problem, as can be seen from the percentages you provided (not such a big difference).
THE absolute worst scenario of undemocratic turnout would be, the same case from above, but only with a 50%+1 versus 50%-1 vote in advantage to the winning candidate in the smallest states. This meaning:
Candidate A gets 50%+1 of the vote in the 39 smallest states plus the DC, and “wins” all those states.
Candidate B gets 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states.
If those percentages are correct then the final outcome would be:
Candidate A wins with 23.265% popular vote.
Candidate B loses with 76.735% of the popular vote.
Now, if this is democracy, I’d rather be in a dictatorship.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted October 09, 2004 05:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Four words: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Normally I would have considered this nothing but "four words". And that's all I knew about it. Recently a friend of mine in the education industry mentioned he thought it was an effective program. He only mentioned it in passing, so I still know nothing about it, nor how much impact it has on the overall education system.
Is "No Child Left Behind" the test-based program for school performance? As I understand it, the schools have to reach a certain test average or they suffer financial cutbacks. If performance doesn't improve in a certain amount of time, the school gets shut down. My mother is in education, and she rants about this program periodically.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2004 05:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Candidate A gets 50%+1 of the vote in the 39 smallest states plus the DC, and "wins" all those states.
Candidate B gets 100% of the vote in the 11 largest states.
You're right. I thought I had it right, guess I'm losing my touch. It was obvious as soon as I saw it. (I got it 3/4 right anyway) That's what happens when I do that kind of thing at 3:00am. Honestly, I didn't try to bias it on purpose....I wouldn't have gone to that much work.
Your method is right, I'll take your word for the results. It's purely theoretical, but I never realized it could be that lopsided. Actually we're both still wrong though, we didn’t take into account voter turnout. But I don’t think that would throw the numbers off more than a few percentage points when you average the states.
And don't overlook the state percentages. With popular vote a candidate only needs 18% of the states, completely neglicting the rest. With EC, that increases to 22%. But we're both being stuborn on the numbers. They are theoretical extremes and could never happen in reality considering demographics and statistics of very large numbers.
Quote:
Now, if this is democracy, I’d rather be in a dictatorship.
If it ever actually happened close to the way you calculated, the EC would be abolished very quickly. If it ever happened close to the way I calculated, there would be a civil war, and for much the same reason as the first civil war.
Besides, what's wrong with a dictatorship? All we have to do is wait for the world to produce the first perfect person.
I did a last minute edit. It occured to me just before hitting the reply button what you may be getting at with the two party system. I want to ponder it a bit.
Khaelo:
As I said I don't know anything about this. What you describe sounds like how some states are doing it, including mine, but I don't know about the federal program. I know a little about the state program here, but not much detail. They don't test in every grade, only 3,6,9,12 or some such thing. I've never heard that a school could be shut down, but maybe it could happen. This would be very impracticle. In a city the kids could be transfered to other, better performing schools. But in rural areas, where would they go? I thought they just lost a portion of funding, which seems counterproductive to me.
Test results over a regional area are published in the paper and I've looked at those the last couple years. I think virtually all schools showed some increase in scores, including city, suburban and rural areas. Even though there was some improvement, a few schools were still very low and under threat from the state.
Test scores seem to be improving, but I still don't like the system. There's got to be a better way, although I have no alternative to offer. Reduced funding is counterproductive. And I don't like the idea of teaching toward passing a test. That doesn't teach reasoning skills or understanding and it could neglect other subjects.
I'm very unsure about this, but I was thinking there might be an incentive for continuing improvement, even for the already top rated schools.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 09, 2004 06:04 PM |
|
|
binabik --
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, man. You've got some homework to do.
I admitted to lack of knowledge. I don't do homework, never did, never will, not even in college. I'm not a facts and figures type of person. I didn't mention you by name but I figured you'd be the "someone else [who] could address...." I fully expected you to tear me to shreds...
Oh, my. I suppose that post could have come across as really rude. I'm sorry binabik, it was not intended to be. Please accept my apology!
I am headed out of town and don't have time to respond to other points raised -- will be back early next week.
But I can't resist responding to one comment --
Quote:
I always consider the end of the era to be the late 70's when....cough cough, gag....d-i-s-c-o happened....excuse me while I go barf...
ROFL
Of course you must know how well I can relate to this.
|
| |
|
|
