Electoral College and Popular Vote split?

[BuckToothMoron]

How Trump Could Win The White House While Losing The Popular Vote

This came up earlier in another discussion, but the article above demonstrates why it's more likely for Trump to win the Electoral College and lose the popular than the reverse. From the article:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s why: Several of Trump’s worst demographic groups happen to be concentrated in states, such as California, New York, Texas and Utah, that are either not competitive or that aren’t on Trump’s must-win list. Conversely, whites without a college degree — one of Trump’s strongest groups — represent a huge bloc in three blue states he would need to turn red to have the best chance of winning 270 electoral votes: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FiveThirtyEight posits this as having a 6% chance of happening so it isn't likely, but as the race tightens those odds will grow.

It's happened before, and in similar times of political angst.

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

If there is a split this year, popular outcry would be to finally do away with the Electoral College. If the Electors really are bound by their state votes, the Electoral College makes no sense anyways. Electors that blindly follow the popular vote wasn't the real point.

As for State selected Senators: I'm in favor of that in theory but you'd need to look at why that as a process went away. Most states willingly abandoned the process and were directly electing Senators. Those that didn't abandon it on their own were having a remarkably hard time getting it together and selecting Senators meaning the Senate would sometimes have issue meeting quorum and frequently had multiple empty seats. On top of that, the State selecting the Electors encouraged the patronage system we've since moved away from.

At this point in US History the States are so weak as political entities I'm not sure they'd even be interested in holding on to the Electoral College or reclaiming Senator selection.

Doing away with popular election of senators would force states to become more involved and limit the power at the federal level. The point was for the state governments to have representatives in congress. With the 17th amendment they have none.

With regard to electoral votes- going to popular election would diminish the voice of smaller states; canidates wouldn't spend time campaigning in rural areas where only a few hundred folks would show up. They would rather concentrate on highly populated areas. Small purple states would be ignored. Bad idea!

 

[SwimExpert]

With regard to electoral votes- going to popular election would diminish the voice of smaller states; canidates wouldn't spend time campaigning in rural areas where only a few hundred folks would show up. They would rather concentrate on highly populated areas. Small purple states would be ignored. Bad idea!

Okay, now that is a load of horseshit. A popular vote makes EVERY vote count. The current electoral system reduces the importance of votes such that only a select few swing states have any import. Candidates focus on these few states, and ignore the rest of the country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is going to have win PA OH FL and either MI WI or VA to get the EVs. It looks like he may very well take OH and FL. Getting PA is problematic and one of the other three even more so. Great OP!

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

You think gerrymandering of districts is bad now, run with your idea.

 

[martybegan]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

 

[martybegan]

To me, I would make the electors in each State go by their congressional districts, with the 2 electors for senator determined by State-wide vote.

You think gerrymandering of districts is bad now, run with your idea.

As currently made, yes, but add a constitutionally mandated "least area/population matrix to the mix, and you get better balance.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

 

[martybegan]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

 

[SwimExpert]

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country.

Why? On what basis do you decide it is necessary to provide voting power based on rural/urban demographics? Why shouldn't rural and urban individuals have equal relative voting power?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country.

Why? On what basis do you decide it is necessary to provide voting power based on rural/urban demographics? Why shouldn't rural and urban individuals have equal relative voting power?

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority. These days that split is between concentrated urban corridors and the "flyover" country in between (with specs of urban dotted around the flyover area).

This wouldn't be an issue if progressives these days were not such incessant busybodies, trying to make people live they way THEY want them to live. They are basically the puritans, the Temperance/Anti-saloon people, and the Holy Rollers all put in one nice package.

 

[martybegan]

If we go to popular vote for President, to me we would have to go back to State legislature election of Senators to compensate.

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

One can get too small, thus negating any effectiveness. And while you may find the States archaic, I would need proof that any changes would be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change.

And while in Northern Louisiana, you still probably got more of a listen than someone in Washington would give you.

And the reason the States handle drivers licenses is that the Feds were not given that power. The reason electoral procedures are different is the States were given that power. The reason for the rest is again, as the constitution was drafted, the States were left anything the feds were not given explicitly.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That became a catastrophic flaw. Got to find some other way to compensate.

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

One can get too small, thus negating any effectiveness. And while you may find the States archaic, I would need proof that any changes would be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change.

And while in Northern Louisiana, you still probably got more of a listen than someone in Washington would give you.

And the reason the States handle drivers licenses is that the Feds were not given that power. The reason electoral procedures are different is the States were given that power. The reason for the rest is again, as the constitution was drafted, the States were left anything the feds were not given explicitly.

Hence the need for this to be reexamined. The Founder never foresaw the need for Driver's Licenses, nor the need for a visual id to get on airplanes or even to vote. They never saw the mess that election laws would become as the country grew. The idea that a business would operate on a nationwide scale is something the Founders would have seen as unusual, not common place. And yet here we are. Some of these things need to be delegated out farther simply because of the reality of how people live and travel and simply appealing to how the Constitution was written 200+ years ago doesn't cut it.

Again, as far as States go, even they're too large to effectively govern on a local scale. If you want that scale of governance, I'd rather see the States broken up. Even then I'd have doubt. They're effectively middle managers now, and they are about as effective as middle managers tend to be.

 

[SwimExpert]

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

 

[martybegan]

Something has to balance the rural-ish/urban-ish balance between parts of the country. The other option is a few amendments that re-introduces the concept of federalism in such a way that prevents courts from overriding the will of the people on a State by State basis.

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

One can get too small, thus negating any effectiveness. And while you may find the States archaic, I would need proof that any changes would be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change.

And while in Northern Louisiana, you still probably got more of a listen than someone in Washington would give you.

And the reason the States handle drivers licenses is that the Feds were not given that power. The reason electoral procedures are different is the States were given that power. The reason for the rest is again, as the constitution was drafted, the States were left anything the feds were not given explicitly.

Hence the need for this to be reexamined. The Founder never foresaw the need for Driver's Licenses, nor the need for a visual id to get on airplanes or even to vote. They never saw the mess that election laws would become as the country grew. The idea that a business would operate on a nationwide scale is something the Founders would have seen as unusual, not common place. And yet here we are. Some of these things need to be delegated out farther simply because of the reality of how people live and travel and simply appealing to how the Constitution was written 200+ years ago doesn't cut it.

Again, as far as States go, even they're too large to effectively govern on a local scale. If you want that scale of governance, I'd rather see the States broken up. Even then I'd have doubt. They're effectively middle managers now, and they are about as effective as middle managers tend to be.

There were plenty of similar documents, bills of sale, currency agreements, (remember back then each State had its own currency) trade agreements, that occurred between States that were handled just fine, with less technology than we have now.

There is no need to change driver's licenses, they work fine now. Considering a Federal DMV would be 10 times worse than a State one, no thank you.

And considering you are arguing higher control is better, your statement that States are "too large" for local control doesn't make sense. All States have home rule provisions that delegate various services lower and lower. But in the end the sovereignty still flows from the State. To have it at lower levels would lead to even further patchworks of rules and regulations.

The system we have now, where sovereignty flows up from the people to the Feds and the States, and then back down from the Feds to the States, and from the States to the counties/towns/villages/cities is to me the best compromise between personal freedoms, effective government, and controlled government.

The fact it isn't working now isn't due to the system, its due to our abandonment of federalism.

 

[martybegan]

because our whole system was based on an imbalance to counter the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What link? The existence of a constitution, that includes explicit rights, and that requires 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of the Federal legislative branches to remove them is proof itself that the system is designed to protect the rights of the minority for the tyranny of simple majority (there I added simple, happy now?)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'm actually against seeing the rise of State power again, and I'll tell you why: States make no sense in the modern age.

Back in the 1700's and even 1800's the average person lived and died within the boundaries of their states. You had pioneers that went out and helped settle and populate the frontier states... but the average person? They'd stay close to their family and never wander that far off.

That has totally changed. And that change is rapid. For my parents, a distance of over 2 hours of travel is equivalent to travelling to China. They just didn't travel and didn't need to. I've moved across state lines multiple times, I'll spend weeks on end in different states, I regularly travel through a large number of States. The State borders are porous and the people are highly mobile over the course of their life.

I'd actually rather have more things nationally standardized so that mobility is even easier. Moving schools is a huge change for kids, especially when you move across state lines. Getting a new driver's license, registering to vote, registering for school, getting new license plates, paying state taxes in two states, transferring medical and educational records, getting new insurance, etc, all suck and are barriers to big moves that could help people leave States with fewer opportunities for States that have more opportunities.

I understand the theories that local government is better, but let's be honest: A lot of local governments suck. They're not very nimble, they respond slowly to change, and they're frequently broke or incompetent. And that problem hits it's zenith when you talk about State governments. They're, by majority count, incompetent. I don't want them to have more power to screw up things. I'd rather they had less.

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

One can get too small, thus negating any effectiveness. And while you may find the States archaic, I would need proof that any changes would be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change.

And while in Northern Louisiana, you still probably got more of a listen than someone in Washington would give you.

And the reason the States handle drivers licenses is that the Feds were not given that power. The reason electoral procedures are different is the States were given that power. The reason for the rest is again, as the constitution was drafted, the States were left anything the feds were not given explicitly.

Hence the need for this to be reexamined. The Founder never foresaw the need for Driver's Licenses, nor the need for a visual id to get on airplanes or even to vote. They never saw the mess that election laws would become as the country grew. The idea that a business would operate on a nationwide scale is something the Founders would have seen as unusual, not common place. And yet here we are. Some of these things need to be delegated out farther simply because of the reality of how people live and travel and simply appealing to how the Constitution was written 200+ years ago doesn't cut it.

Again, as far as States go, even they're too large to effectively govern on a local scale. If you want that scale of governance, I'd rather see the States broken up. Even then I'd have doubt. They're effectively middle managers now, and they are about as effective as middle managers tend to be.

There were plenty of similar documents, bills of sale, currency agreements, (remember back then each State had its own currency) trade agreements, that occurred between States that were handled just fine, with less technology than we have now.

There is no need to change driver's licenses, they work fine now. Considering a Federal DMV would be 10 times worse than a State one, no thank you.

And considering you are arguing higher control is better, your statement that States are "too large" for local control doesn't make sense. All States have home rule provisions that delegate various services lower and lower. But in the end the sovereignty still flows from the State. To have it at lower levels would lead to even further patchworks of rules and regulations.

The system we have now, where sovereignty flows up from the people to the Feds and the States, and then back down from the Feds to the States, and from the States to the counties/towns/villages/cities is to me the best compromise between personal freedoms, effective government, and controlled government.

The fact it isn't working now isn't due to the system, its due to our abandonment of federalism.

Maybe, but I also think it's partially the unwillingness to change. A lot of the Local/State/Federal balance could be salvaged if every so often one level would admit another level would do things best.

For example: We really do need a national i.d. The 50 state drivers licenses are a terrible way to handle photo id for airplanes or business requiring photo i.d.'s across state lines. I'm expecting within a few years if there's no movement on a national i.d. that I'll have to start carrying and showing a passport. State's should relinquish at least the design of the drivers license. But as we saw in Louisiana, the State government was so stubborn they wouldn't even consider complying with Federal I.D. laws and took things right up to the point where Louisiana citizens would have needed a passport to get on planes. That was just overwhelmingly stupid. You need a photo id to do returns at some stores. Why shouldn't that be standardized?

On the Federal level: The Feds need to allow social security and other welfare benefits to be set locally. CoL is wildly different in a lot of places. And don't get me started on a Federal Minimum Wage. That makes no damn sense.

And as far as Education: The States need to let go of that and return it to the local levels or allow the Feds to standardize it. One or the other. The current model is a big reason why things are so broken as on one hand the States are trying to wield too much control over the local scene, but also refuse to do anything to standardize things so we can have a discussion at the national level.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually it's more likely Clinton wins the WH while losing the popular vote.

 

[martybegan]

This country was based on the concept of federalism, that some things are better done at a local (and by local I mean State) level. From there the individual States can figure out further local control and governance, via the "home rule" portions of their constitutions and laws.

The issue is your vision puts power further and further away from the people the lawmakers, executors and judges are responsible to. It makes it easier for them to ignore local complaints, and ignore the will of the local people.

To put it simply, do you really want some person in Washington deciding your garbage pick-up?

I know that is a small example, but remove the States and you get "one size fits all" government. If you think the current balkanization we are experiencing now is bad, just wait until you force someone from Mississippi to wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 to get a hand gun, or allow deer hunting in the backyards of Queens.

I understand your point, and I actually think a lot of what is going wrong in healthcare and welfare is related to that. Standards of living in New York City and in Vienna, Louisiana are very different things. Somethings make sense at the local level.

But I'd like to see renegotiation of what belongs to what in terms of governing, and I'd honestly rather see smaller and more numerous states rather than the 50 or so we have now. The State governments aren't all that much better than the Federal about paying attention to local concerns. When I lived in Louisiana, Northeast Louisiana was clearly an after thought to the State when it wasn't ignored entirely. Ask someone in upstate New York how much they think they're listened to in comparison to New York City residents. In Illinois, Chicago politics is nearly everything. States don't solve the problem. They haven't solved the problem in years. They often take any problem and make it worse. Most states are simply too big and ran too incompetently.

In addition, some of the stuff we leave to the states makes no sense. Why isn't there a nationwide driver's license? The fact there's 50 different licenses out there make it ridiculously easy to forge one and get on a plane or buy alcohol illegally. Why are there literally thousands of different electoral laws across 50 states and thousands of voting districts? Why is it easier to become a teacher or lawyer in some states? Why is it different at all? Why is it you can have credit cards based in Delaware but can only buy insurance locally? Why is civil court law different in all 50 states (which is the reason all the credit cards are based in Delaware)?

A lot of this makes no sense in a world where people frequently do business across state lines, travel across state lines, and move across state lines, especially when state governments themselves are inefficient or stupid.

One can get too small, thus negating any effectiveness. And while you may find the States archaic, I would need proof that any changes would be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change.

And while in Northern Louisiana, you still probably got more of a listen than someone in Washington would give you.

And the reason the States handle drivers licenses is that the Feds were not given that power. The reason electoral procedures are different is the States were given that power. The reason for the rest is again, as the constitution was drafted, the States were left anything the feds were not given explicitly.

Hence the need for this to be reexamined. The Founder never foresaw the need for Driver's Licenses, nor the need for a visual id to get on airplanes or even to vote. They never saw the mess that election laws would become as the country grew. The idea that a business would operate on a nationwide scale is something the Founders would have seen as unusual, not common place. And yet here we are. Some of these things need to be delegated out farther simply because of the reality of how people live and travel and simply appealing to how the Constitution was written 200+ years ago doesn't cut it.

Again, as far as States go, even they're too large to effectively govern on a local scale. If you want that scale of governance, I'd rather see the States broken up. Even then I'd have doubt. They're effectively middle managers now, and they are about as effective as middle managers tend to be.

There were plenty of similar documents, bills of sale, currency agreements, (remember back then each State had its own currency) trade agreements, that occurred between States that were handled just fine, with less technology than we have now.

There is no need to change driver's licenses, they work fine now. Considering a Federal DMV would be 10 times worse than a State one, no thank you.

And considering you are arguing higher control is better, your statement that States are "too large" for local control doesn't make sense. All States have home rule provisions that delegate various services lower and lower. But in the end the sovereignty still flows from the State. To have it at lower levels would lead to even further patchworks of rules and regulations.

The system we have now, where sovereignty flows up from the people to the Feds and the States, and then back down from the Feds to the States, and from the States to the counties/towns/villages/cities is to me the best compromise between personal freedoms, effective government, and controlled government.

The fact it isn't working now isn't due to the system, its due to our abandonment of federalism.

Maybe, but I also think it's partially the unwillingness to change. A lot of the Local/State/Federal balance could be salvaged if every so often one level would admit another level would do things best.

For example: We really do need a national i.d. The 50 state drivers licenses are a terrible way to handle photo id for airplanes or business requiring photo i.d.'s across state lines. I'm expecting within a few years if there's no movement on a national i.d. that I'll have to start carrying and showing a passport. State's should relinquish at least the design of the drivers license. But as we saw in Louisiana, the State government was so stubborn they wouldn't even consider complying with Federal I.D. laws and took things right up to the point where Louisiana citizens would have needed a passport to get on planes. That was just overwhelmingly stupid. You need a photo id to do returns at some stores. Why shouldn't that be standardized?

On the Federal level: The Feds need to allow social security and other welfare benefits to be set locally. CoL is wildly different in a lot of places. And don't get me started on a Federal Minimum Wage. That makes no damn sense.

And as far as Education: The States need to let go of that and return it to the local levels or allow the Feds to standardize it. One or the other. The current model is a big reason why things are so broken as on one hand the States are trying to wield too much control over the local scene, but also refuse to do anything to standardize things so we can have a discussion at the national level.

A federal ID has too much of that "paper's please" implication for a lot of people. The whole thing with planes needing some specific uber-ID to me is just an excuse. Do you really think someone who really really wants to take a plane down will be unable to get a amped up ID with more difficulty?

On your 2nd point I agree.

Most of the issues with education ARE at the local level, specifically the local level in large cities. But the bigger issue to me in education is we have decided that all paths lead to college, and that simply isn't right for some students. Vocational education must be re-introduced, with apprenticeships taking the place of college for those who's career choices don't need it.