3 ms·

The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to

The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.

genericpseudo 10y ago
This is a bad thing how? Serious question. The US would be a much happier and healthier place if it were more like the EU.
- nostromo 10y ago
  The US is quite a bit like the EU. The average German has less say in EU politics than the average Luxembourger. Similarly, the average Californian has less say in US politics than the average Wyomingite.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Where states are leaving or threatening to leave, and where the bureaucracies seem completely unconnected with the voters? I think not.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jotux 10y ago
The electoral college no longer provides the intended benefit to those states anyways -- it just makes swing states more important.
serge2k 10y ago
Why? They would get the chance to participate in any amendment to abolish the electoral college.
jonathankoren 10y ago
The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. Specifically that people would have a primary allegiance to their state and not the federation. This was true since World War I at the latest, and Reconstruction at the earliest. Quite frankly it's asinine that my town has more population and less representation than 6 states.
- buyx 10y ago
  As a non-American, I have to ask why the large, liberal states don't embrace States' Rights? I know that historically, "States' Rights" has been a codeword for racism, but times change. Why don't liberal states push for a smaller federal government, and more power for their own governments? Mitt Romney introduced a law to that became a blueprint for Obamacare, when he was governor of Massachusetts..if Trump were to abolish Obamacare, why couldn't states introduce their own programs? Similarly, if Trump appoints a conservative who wants Roe v Wade overturned, states that want to maintain abortion could do so, right? States that value clean water could enact regulations protecting their water supplies, while those that value economic growth sacrifice the health of their residents a little. And citizens could vote with their feet. If a state like Kansas ended up gutting its government by cutting taxes (as it has), surely the problem would self-correct at some point, and set an example for other states? Pollution is often a cross-border problem, but why couldn't states sue each other to enforce pollution controls? Why couldn't liberal states impose taxes and fund their own EPAs (perhaps with bigger budgets, since federal taxes would be cut), or do interstate compacts to fund agencies for basic science that would be too expensive to fund alone? The constitution and Bill of Rights would still be in force, but it seems like the federal government's actions seem to lead to great unhappiness, from both sides, when the other party is in power. Why is there such opposition to cutting the power of the federal government, from liberal Americans? I'm not an American, but I do follow US politics somewhat closely, and I'm genuinely perplexed by this.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    It's more of an urban verses rural than a red verses blue states issue.
  - losvedir 10y ago
    American here, and I completely agree. I would love for my state to legalize marijuana and not be beholden to the whims of the current president (since it's still illegal at the federal level). Another thing I'd like to try would be a basic income guarantee with corresponding removal of minimum wage (but again, there's a federal minimum wage). > Similarly, if Trump appoints a conservative who wants Roe v Wade overturned, states that want to maintain abortion could do so, right? Yeah, but a lot of people aren't content with that. Some people want to force it to be legal everywhere, even in states that wouldn't otherwise want it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.

genericpseudo 10y ago

This is a bad thing how? Serious question. The US would be a much happier and healthier place if it were more like the EU.

nostromo 10y ago
The US is quite a bit like the EU. The average German has less say in EU politics than the average Luxembourger. Similarly, the average Californian has less say in US politics than the average Wyomingite.
gozur88 10y ago
Where states are leaving or threatening to leave, and where the bureaucracies seem completely unconnected with the voters? I think not.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jotux 10y ago

The electoral college no longer provides the intended benefit to those states anyways -- it just makes swing states more important.

serge2k 10y ago

Why? They would get the chance to participate in any amendment to abolish the electoral college.

jonathankoren 10y ago

The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. Specifically that people would have a primary allegiance to their state and not the federation. This was true since World War I at the latest, and Reconstruction at the earliest. Quite frankly it's asinine that my town has more population and less representation than 6 states.

buyx 10y ago
As a non-American, I have to ask why the large, liberal states don't embrace States' Rights? I know that historically, "States' Rights" has been a codeword for racism, but times change. Why don't liberal states push for a smaller federal government, and more power for their own governments? Mitt Romney introduced a law to that became a blueprint for Obamacare, when he was governor of Massachusetts..if Trump were to abolish Obamacare, why couldn't states introduce their own programs? Similarly, if Trump appoints a conservative who wants Roe v Wade overturned, states that want to maintain abortion could do so, right? States that value clean water could enact regulations protecting their water supplies, while those that value economic growth sacrifice the health of their residents a little. And citizens could vote with their feet. If a state like Kansas ended up gutting its government by cutting taxes (as it has), surely the problem would self-correct at some point, and set an example for other states? Pollution is often a cross-border problem, but why couldn't states sue each other to enforce pollution controls? Why couldn't liberal states impose taxes and fund their own EPAs (perhaps with bigger budgets, since federal taxes would be cut), or do interstate compacts to fund agencies for basic science that would be too expensive to fund alone? The constitution and Bill of Rights would still be in force, but it seems like the federal government's actions seem to lead to great unhappiness, from both sides, when the other party is in power. Why is there such opposition to cutting the power of the federal government, from liberal Americans? I'm not an American, but I do follow US politics somewhat closely, and I'm genuinely perplexed by this.
- woofyman 10y ago
  It's more of an urban verses rural than a red verses blue states issue.
- losvedir 10y ago
  American here, and I completely agree. I would love for my state to legalize marijuana and not be beholden to the whims of the current president (since it's still illegal at the federal level). Another thing I'd like to try would be a basic income guarantee with corresponding removal of minimum wage (but again, there's a federal minimum wage). > Similarly, if Trump appoints a conservative who wants Roe v Wade overturned, states that want to maintain abortion could do so, right? Yeah, but a lot of people aren't content with that. Some people want to force it to be legal everywhere, even in states that wouldn't otherwise want it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]