3 ms·

Exactly my thoughts. Let states implement the policy that affects the state and let the country as a whole elect the federal government. There is no need for so

Exactly my thoughts. Let states implement the policy that affects the state and let the country as a whole elect the federal government. There is no need for some votes to have more power than some other votes based on the states when electing the President.

brightball 10y ago
That would make sense if there were strict limitations on what the federal government had the power to do (aka - the Constitution). The problem is that federal powers have increased due to overly broad interpretations of the commerce clause. If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it. Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  I see what you're saying but I would also like to point out that it works both way. States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
  - brightball 10y ago
    How are gun control and marijuana legalization not state specific?
    - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
      Because they don't affect just the state. If one state restricts it and another doesn't, people will smuggle them across state lines.
- akiselev 10y ago
  > Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. Although the President has a lot of power to carry out immediate action using the agencies under his control, his powers over the long term are extremely limited relative to the legislature and courts. The founding fathers intended that the Senate and Supreme Court be the firewall against the mob rule, not the president or electoral college. Hamilton's argument for the electoral college in Federalist No 68 was that the electors would be people qualified to be the last firewall against choosing an authoritarian, demagogue, or someone otherwise "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" to hold the single most powerful position in the nation. AFAICT he and the other founding fathers considered maintaining a balance of power between large and small states to be a very secondary consideration because that was the purpose of the courts and upper chamber. > If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. The states have always had the power to do that. From refusing to help federal agencies enforce prohibition to sanctuary cities outright interfering with immigration enforcement to lower courts that routinely ignore higher courts. Even if states could do more to reject federal policy, the Federal government is the only sugar daddy in town that can support their healthcare, social security, defense, and infrastructure habits. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, for example, didn't set the minimum age to 18 but penalized any state with a drinking age below 21 by stripping them of 10% of their annual federal highway contribution. Now the minimum drinking age is 21 nationwide, despite the fact that any state could have easily ignored the directive at the cost of billions a year in infrastructure spending. As long as the federal government has the money, it has the power to make the states do almost anything it wants.

brightball 10y ago

That would make sense if there were strict limitations on what the federal government had the power to do (aka - the Constitution). The problem is that federal powers have increased due to overly broad interpretations of the commerce clause. If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it. Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.

vaishaksuresh 10y ago
I see what you're saying but I would also like to point out that it works both way. States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
- brightball 10y ago
  How are gun control and marijuana legalization not state specific?
  - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
    Because they don't affect just the state. If one state restricts it and another doesn't, people will smuggle them across state lines.
akiselev 10y ago
> Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. Although the President has a lot of power to carry out immediate action using the agencies under his control, his powers over the long term are extremely limited relative to the legislature and courts. The founding fathers intended that the Senate and Supreme Court be the firewall against the mob rule, not the president or electoral college. Hamilton's argument for the electoral college in Federalist No 68 was that the electors would be people qualified to be the last firewall against choosing an authoritarian, demagogue, or someone otherwise "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" to hold the single most powerful position in the nation. AFAICT he and the other founding fathers considered maintaining a balance of power between large and small states to be a very secondary consideration because that was the purpose of the courts and upper chamber. > If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. The states have always had the power to do that. From refusing to help federal agencies enforce prohibition to sanctuary cities outright interfering with immigration enforcement to lower courts that routinely ignore higher courts. Even if states could do more to reject federal policy, the Federal government is the only sugar daddy in town that can support their healthcare, social security, defense, and infrastructure habits. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, for example, didn't set the minimum age to 18 but penalized any state with a drinking age below 21 by stripping them of 10% of their annual federal highway contribution. Now the minimum drinking age is 21 nationwide, despite the fact that any state could have easily ignored the directive at the cost of billions a year in infrastructure spending. As long as the federal government has the money, it has the power to make the states do almost anything it wants.