NationStates Jolt Archive

I never once in my life believed that US was a democracy – quite the contrary.

As for the 17th Amendment (yes, I did have to look it up – we’re not taught the Amendments of the American Constitution in Danish schools you know), I fail to see why it should be repealed. As I understand it, it simply states that the people of a given state elect their own Senators. What’s wrong with that?

Finally, I never said that Bush did not win. I was merely puzzled that a candidate who did not get the majority of the votes could still win the election…

Yea! Honest answers!
Not knowing you were from Denmark, I give you a pass... not many Americans could tell you what the 17th was, either... What is wrong with election of Senators? Well, in the beginning, it was set up so that the various States would select the House of Representatives by popular election, and that the States would select the Senator either by appointment by the Governor, or by a vote of the Legislatures of that State (Legislature is like congress only at state level. All states have an upper (normally Senate) and lower (normally house of reps) except for Nebraska, which has only one house) The theory was that the Senate would balance the House (checks and balances) with "States Rights" versus "Peoples Rights" which most of the time was really NOT for the people anyway...

As it stands now, the various States of our Union do NOT have any direct representation at the Federal level... so they do like everybody else does and hire Lobbyists...

Repealing the 17th Amendment would put states rights in a stronger front, and it is theorized would help curtail some of the silliness that our Imperial Federal Government heaps down upon us to become burdens on us from the State level (even though it really comes from Federal level)

Last point, he was by far not the first to win even though he didn't have the majority of the votes. Electorial College does that sometimes... again, if you look at the demographics, the smaller states actually have more pull per capita than the larger states (min Electoral votes is 3, then they go up from there, by number of combined congressional districts and 2 senate seats)

Forefathers put Electorial College in there as a check and balance against a goofy vote from the populace of say a Hitler or a Stalin. Lately, there have been popular initiatives in some states that dictate that the votes are split by percentage of who gets what (btw, even doing it that way in all states, Gore STILL would have lost in 2000... darn small states...) and also that they MUST vote for who they were commanded to, even if that person turns out to be a necro/child molestor/wifebeater/tax cheat between election day and inauguration (well actually electorial day, which happens normally in early Dec after an early Nov election)

Hope that didn't bore you too much...

Are you saying that Montana's interests are always more important than Chicagos?

If not, this is a strawman, no?

Yes, Montana's interests are by definition more important than Chicago's!
That is, unless you can show me Chicago's star on the US Flag?? All states are peers. Montana is a state, and has an equal voice in government (in the Senate), to Illinois. You'll note that the Senate can stop legislation that the House passes, for example.
Chicago, while being one of America's biggest cities, is subservient to the government of Illinois. The idea that it should have more say in electing the President is absurd.

No, this is not a strawman... it's common sense!

However - if there are ten times as many voters in Chicago as there are in Montana (you'll forgive my exaggeration for effect), shouldn't Chicago have a greater political 'impact' than Montana?

Based on historical precedent, you'd probably want to be in that Union because otherwise you'd be killed by an invading army from the more populated states...

Nope. Not unless Chicago leaves Illinois and becomes its own state.

Not sure what you're getting at there. :confused:

Not sure what you're getting at there. :confused:
He's obviously talking about your Civil War.

He's obviously talking about your Civil War.

Given that the Confederacy very nearly won, that's not a particularly compelling arguement.

Yes, Montana's interests are by definition more important than Chicago's!
That is, unless you can show me Chicago's star on the US Flag?? All states are peers. Montana is a state, and has an equal voice in government (in the Senate), to Illinois. You'll note that the Senate can stop legislation that the House passes, for example.
Chicago, while being one of America's biggest cities, is subservient to the government of Illinois. The idea that it should have more say in electing the President is absurd.

No, this is not a strawman... it's common sense!


It is only 'common sense' if you ignore the word 'common'. Oh, and 'sense'.

A star on a flag?

That's your justification? It doesn't matter how many of the citizens follow an ideal, if they don't have a star on a flag, fuck'em?

I don't buy into your fuedal slaveholder mentality. Chicago is no more 'subservient' to Illinois, than Illinois is to the rest of the nation - that is, there is a mutual relationship of power sharing, where the power is granted primarily to the state, by the people, and to the nation by the state.

If there were enough people in Chicago to ensure that Chicago could dominate all of Illinois politics, by sheer weight of numbers - then Illinois would be 'subservient' (your terminology) to the people of Chicago... which seems fair, it being the 'democratic' way of doing things.

If Montana doesn't have enough people to counter the will of even just Chicago... why should Montana have more political power? Your 'star' argument?



Nope. Not unless Chicago leaves Illinois and becomes its own state.

Not sure what you're getting at there. :confused:

Really? Did you forget your own question?

Given that the Confederacy very nearly won, that's not a particularly compelling arguement.

Let us look at your own words...

"If one was from a low population state, I'd want to be in your Union why?"

A brief look at the history books answers this question.

I'll put it in suimple terms - that 'Union' doesn't allow you to opt out.

Historically - you have the choice of agree to be in the Union, of your own free will... or to face the wrath of armies of aggression, of your own free will.

That is why you would 'want to be in' it.

It is only 'common sense' if you ignore the word 'common'. Oh, and 'sense'.

ahhhh. Nice and pointlessly insulting! Very nice! :rolleyes:

A star on a flag?

That's your justification? It doesn't matter how many of the citizens follow an ideal, if they don't have a star on a flag, fuck'em?

Why, YES!!! That's exactly right. And best of all: there is no question about it!

STATES form the union, not cities, not people. People form a state. Once there is a collective that has joined the Union, then they're in at equal footing with all the other states. For example, California law isn't better than Oregon law just because California has more people. Which, in a nutshell, is what you're proposing.

But consider: any state with a large city (ie: Illinois with Chicago) has many more electoral votes than a place like Montana. You're complaining about a small population state having 2 "extra" EC votes, which is actually a check on tyranny.

So, no, they're not "fucked" as you say. They vote the same as everybody else, and their state has more say due to the population.

I don't buy into your fuedal slaveholder mentality. Chicago is no more 'subservient' to Illinois, than Illinois is to the rest of the nation - that is, there is a mutual relationship of power sharing, where the power is granted primarily to the state, by the people, and to the nation by the state.

Ah, more insulting dialogue, but with a continued lack of substance!

Thanks for agreeing with me.
Illinois litigates/funds Chicago, and Chicago may not make any laws contrary to the state. Same idea. If you don't want to use the word subservient, that's your perogative, but it's still the truth. Think I'm wrong? Show me ANY law that an American city has which is contrary to that state's law.

If there were enough people in Chicago to ensure that Chicago could dominate all of Illinois politics, by sheer weight of numbers - then Illinois would be 'subservient' (your terminology) to the people of Chicago... which seems fair, it being the 'democratic' way of doing things.

You're changing the subject. We're talking about direct representational voting... the point is that *most* of the time, cities have similar issues and it'd be very easy for a Presidential candidate to talk about inner city regeneration, day care and infrastructure improvements and totally ignore non-urban issues.
However, to your idea: In theory, yeah, I suppose it might be possible to Chicago to vote EN BLOC with other cities in the state to make changes to the state constitution. (On its own, Chicago has about 1/4th the population of the state). As to how effective it would be, I'm guessing not very else it'd have been done by now.

If Montana doesn't have enough people to counter the will of even just Chicago... why should Montana have more political power? Your 'star' argument?

:sigh: You really didn't get the point of that, did you? A STATE has rights. A STATE is a part of the Union. A city is a collection of people IN a state. Thus the rights/priorities of Montana are ALWAYS more important than those of Chicago. Chicago's problems are Illinois to deal with, NOT the Feds!

Really? Did you forget your own question?

Nah. I just didn't see your point. There not having been a civil war in the US in nearly 150 years, it isn't really something one thinks of often.

Let us look at your own words...

"If one was from a low population state, I'd want to be in your Union why?"

A brief look at the history books answers this question.

I'll put it in suimple terms - that 'Union' doesn't allow you to opt out.

Historically - you have the choice of agree to be in the Union, of your own free will... or to face the wrath of armies of aggression, of your own free will.

That is why you would 'want to be in' it.

No, a state does not have the right to leave the Union. My point was that the Union would have never existed had there not been a Senate and protections for the smaller population states.

Historically, you'd have to agree that 9 of the original 13 would never have signed a compact wherein Virginia, New York, Massachusettes and Pennsylvania called all the shots.

So: no, that's not a reason to want to be in it, that's incentive to STAY in it.

Given the choices on the ballot........Absolutely!

Yes. I'm glad he didn't sign Kyoto either and I hope the US never does sign it. As far as some of his other indiscretions, well, given the choices it was dumb or dumber so...

I assume you still mean on a per-state basis, but done on a percentage basis?
IE: Connecticut has 7 votes. Bush gets 38% and Kerry gets 58%. Bush gets 2.6 votes and Kerry gets 4 votes, with .4 votes being split amongst the 5 other candidates?Yes.

Three problems I see with that:

a) It makes voter fraud (dead people, Diebold errors, etc) a LOT more powerful, since now it takes far smaller number of cheats in more places (and thus harder to detect) to change an election. All the more reasons to be more vigilant about voter fraud, and to have the machines leave a paper trail. (We should be more vigilant anyway, but this would force us to be.)

b) It futher dilutes the states and brings us closer to NFLocracy. Why bother campaigning in (say) South Carolina, when you'll get a percentage of the votes anyway and only cities matter?Who says you'd get a percentage of the votes anyway?
Furthermore, simply because you'd get a percentage of the votes doesn't mean you'd get enough to get an electoral vote. This system would make it more likely that someone could, though, which is an incentive to campaign in the smaller states, not the other way around.

c) It will increase the chance for deadlock. Certainly the last two elections would have been decided by an electoral vote or three. I don't see that as really helping. :)That's fine. I'm not concerned with deadlock, I am concerned with making the elections more democratic, and trying to break the hold that the two parties have on the government.

I disagree. By allocating more power to the lesser populated areas, you promote the interests of rural voters over urban voters... of the typically more extreme voters over the typically less extreme voters... and of the typically more insular voters over the typically more inclusive voters.I don't especially care for a lot of the opinions of the rural voters, but at the same time I don't believe that they should be ignored.

You also fuel a tyranny of the minority dynamic.

At least a 'tyranny of the majority' can claim to be democratic.This is true, but I believe that altering the electoral college to make the electoral votes representative of the actual vote will make things more democratic.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would put states rights in a stronger front, and it is theorized would help curtail some of the silliness that our Imperial Federal Government heaps down upon us to become burdens on us from the State level (even though it really comes from Federal level)The states are responsible for exponentially more silliness than the federal government is.

Yes.

While not as bad as direct representation, I still have reservations about it... it might need some alterations. Maybe the 2 Senatorial votes go to the state's "winner"?

All the more reasons to be more vigilant about voter fraud, and to have the machines leave a paper trail. (We should be more vigilant anyway, but this would force us to be.)

Yeah, but the concept of voting fraud is only about an hour younger than voting itself. :( I agree we need safeguards et al, but this still makes it a lot more tempting and easier to rig an election since a few votes per district now weigh more.

Who says you'd get a percentage of the votes anyway?
Furthermore, simply because you'd get a percentage of the votes doesn't mean you'd get enough to get an electoral vote. This system would make it more likely that someone could, though, which is an incentive to campaign in the smaller states, not the other way around.

Because it'd not be as if they have a choice. A candidate could still run on an all-urban platform and clean up. You think California farmers would get anything when the Congressmen & Prez know they need to keep L.A happy?

Only in some situations. If a candidate won (say) 66-75% of the votes in New York City, LA etc, he'd be less apt to care about the rest so much. It'd only be a consideration if a race occurred where the candidates are either so close or so opposite that the city votes are nearly 50/50.
Landslides rarely happen... 1984's election of course being an obvious exception.

That's fine. I'm not concerned with deadlock, I am concerned with making the elections more democratic, and trying to break the hold that the two parties have on the government.

I'm all for breaking the two party dualopoly, but I think that deadlock is actually a problem. I remember the markets were not really happy back in 2000 for that little hiatus in Florida, for example. To say nothing of all the agitates wanting a "revote", etc.

ahhhh. Nice and pointlessly insulting! Very nice! :rolleyes:


Neither pointles nor insulting. You state something as common sense which might not be proved to be either 'common' (by which, I assume, we mean something along the lines of 'accepted by the majority') nor sense (by which I mean that having a star on a flag is a historical account of a political division - not a reason for perpetuating inequalities).


Why, YES!!! That's exactly right. And best of all: there is no question about it!

STATES form the union, not cities, not people. People form a state. Once there is a collective that has joined the Union, then they're in at equal footing with all the other states. For example, California law isn't better than Oregon law just because California has more people. Which, in a nutshell, is what you're proposing.

But consider: any state with a large city (ie: Illinois with Chicago) has many more electoral votes than a place like Montana. You're complaining about a small population state having 2 "extra" EC votes, which is actually a check on tyranny.

So, no, they're not "fucked" as you say. They vote the same as everybody else, and their state has more say due to the population.


I don't accept "It's always been that way" as a logical argument, either. Just because our current model is feudal, doesn't make it 'best' now, or even an appropriate consideration.

As for 'California law isn't better than Oregon law just because California has more people. Which, in a nutshell, is what you're proposing..."

You continue to perpetuate strawman arguments. I didn't discuss the law of either state, or any other. I'm discussing nothing other than how voting might be conducted democratically. If you wish to oppose democratic government, knock yourself out - but use my actual arguments if you are going to involve me.


Ah, more insulting dialogue, but with a continued lack of substance!

Thanks for agreeing with me.
Illinois litigates/funds Chicago, and Chicago may not make any laws contrary to the state. Same idea. If you don't want to use the word subservient, that's your perogative, but it's still the truth. Think I'm wrong? Show me ANY law that an American city has which is contrary to that state's law.


Why? Again with the "It was good enough for momma, it's good enough for me" approach to government and accountability?

Government wields the power allocated to it by it's people... unless the model is entirely non-democratic - in which case it wields the power allowed to it by the apathy of it's people.

So - in any nation that even pretend to be democratic, the 'city' can never be 'subservient' to the 'state'. Perhaps you were just arguing that the American model is corrupt and oppressive - in which case I agree.


You're changing the subject. We're talking about direct representational voting... the point is that *most* of the time, cities have similar issues and it'd be very easy for a Presidential candidate to talk about inner city regeneration, day care and infrastructure improvements and totally ignore non-urban issues.
However, to your idea: In theory, yeah, I suppose it might be possible to Chicago to vote EN BLOC with other cities in the state to make changes to the state constitution. (On its own, Chicago has about 1/4th the population of the state). As to how effective it would be, I'm guessing not very else it'd have been done by now.


Surely it would need something approaching half of the voters.... and, they'd all have to vote along similar party lines.


:sigh: You really didn't get the point of that, did you? A STATE has rights. A STATE is a part of the Union. A city is a collection of people IN a state. Thus the rights/priorities of Montana are ALWAYS more important than those of Chicago. Chicago's problems are Illinois to deal with, NOT the Feds!


It's not that I 'didn't get it' - I just consider the argument of what was irrelevent to the discussion of what should be.

Dissolve states completely, allocating power locally. Or dissolve states completely and centralise. Either would be 'fairer' than this 'barony' model based on landgrabbing.


Nah. I just didn't see your point. There not having been a civil war in the US in nearly 150 years, it isn't really something one thinks of often.

I wonder why there haven't been any civil wars?

(Ignoring for the moment that, since the seceding states had seceded.. it was an invasion of a sovereign power - not a 'civil' war, at all).

While not as bad as direct representation, I still have reservations about it... it might need some alterations. Maybe the 2 Senatorial votes go to the state's "winner"?Well, for the Senate, it would be different. There isn't an Electoral College system set up for Senate races. I wouldn't mind, though, having the states divided up in a similar manner and the proportions done for them, too.


Yeah, but the concept of voting fraud is only about an hour younger than voting itself. :( I agree we need safeguards et al, but this still makes it a lot more tempting and easier to rig an election since a few votes per district now weigh more. Wouldn't it be easier to rig votes all at once, at one or two points in a state, than having to do it all over the state?

Because it'd not be as if they have a choice. A candidate could still run on an all-urban platform and clean up. You think California farmers would get anything when the Congressmen & Prez know they need to keep L.A happy?

Only in some situations. If a candidate won (say) 66-75% of the votes in New York City, LA etc, he'd be less apt to care about the rest so much. It'd only be a consideration if a race occurred where the candidates are either so close or so opposite that the city votes are nearly 50/50.
Landslides rarely happen... 1984's election of course being an obvious exception.Yes, because it will provide motivation for the candidates who aren't going to win in the cities to try to get the rural people to vote in order to win some of the electoral votes.
They do enough polls to determine who is likely to win in an area long before actual voting occurs.

I'm all for breaking the two party dualopoly, but I think that deadlock is actually a problem. I remember the markets were not really happy back in 2000 for that little hiatus in Florida, for example. To say nothing of all the agitates wanting a "revote", etc.I can agree with your points, but I think ensuring that every vote counts (and is counted) is worth the risk of these things.

absoultely not.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying kerry or gore was any better. gore's doing better now that he's not in politics and kerry just ran a terrible capaign.

The US political system is a big tightrope act, balanced between different governmental models. Partly democracy, partly republic, partly one nation, partly a federation of semi-sovereign states, partly dependent on elected leaders, partly committee-run, partly anarchic, etc. I think this is due to the founders' overriding interest in checks and balances, to make sure that it would be impossible/very difficult for any one group to gain effective dominance over all others, functionally, geographically or ideologically. Another thing to remember is that the Constitution contains a lot of compromises that were put in to get the states to ratify it, but which made many in the new Congress unhappy. When you read their papers and correspondence, you see an expectation that many issues -- such as the set up of the Electoral College and distribution of electoral votes -- would be revisited in the future. I'm one of those "Constitution as living document" people, because the US Constitution was written by lawyers to get a certain job done at a certain time under certain circumstances, not by idealogues to set a national identity/philosophy. The writers themselves expected it to be amended, so I see no reason not update it every now and then. In the process of doing that, we determine what kind of a nation we are. At the moment, we're a nation that prefers a frankenstein monster of cobbled together governmental systems, possibly because it is harder to turn such into a dictatorship.

That said, no, Bush should not have been elected, but not because of the very obvious election fraud in Florida. He should not have been elected because he was clearly incompetent. That was obvious from the first words out of his mouth. If Americans had been voting in the real, pragmatic interests of the nation and themselves, neither 2000 nor 2004 would have been as close as they were. But Americans sacrificed the good of the nation in favor of their own personal, issue-driven, ideological agendas that they hoped Bush would promote. He is the president every ideologue and true believer thought they could use. Everybody's puppet. And look where it has gotten us.
Missed ya, brainy chick. ;)

Americans.

The more committed delusional folk do.

My personal opinion is no. Look what he has done whilst in power: Invaded Iraq(should of never happened in the way it has)
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty(reason was "it would affect our economy)
Now wants to invade Iran for some reason. well actually he wants them to stop their nuclear program.(why should they?) I'm not supporting terroism or anything like that but america have nuclear weapons and a nuclear program, why cant they stop theirs?



you guys are so one minded. I'm not a big bushie myself but come on, the iraq war is one aspect of the administration. albeit it was a huge one but its not like the man is an inept idiot. he graduated from Yale and was near the top of his class (yeah, i dont think an idiot can do that, sorry guys) Every president has fucked up in some major way, alright, get used to it. And remember over 2/3 of americans supported the war in iraq when it started. And most countries in the world had conceeded that saddam had WMD's they just didnt want war to get rid of them.

as for the kyoto treaty, look at the facts, depending on the size of various industries, some countries would actually be allowed to increase their emissions. Russia can under accord increase it's emissions by 300%. As for the US we have to reduce by something like 56%. You see, signing the treaty would force our government to force businesses to use their own money and reduce their own emissions. (americans generally look down on government controlling business decisions) Its does hurt the economy, now, businesses not only have to deal with their union expenses and whatever else they have to pay for, but they have to use their own money to reduce emissions. The only way to pay for all that research...layoffs.

and nukes, "the zionist regime will be wiped from the map," said iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad. Ummm...you think i trust that guy having nuclear weapons. Iran is one of the world's largest producers of oil. The country damn near floats on oil...why do they need nuclear energy. And actually the legal reason behind it... if you want to know, is that iran signed the NPT (non proliferation treaty for those too lacking to know). Iran producing nuclear energy in any form is in fact illegal. We cant say jack to India and pakistan because neither of them signed it...we can have strongly worded language but nothing legal. As for iran, they said basically "we will not produce nuclear energy in any form" when they signed the treaty. And again, if you must know, countries having nuclear weapons actually prevents wars. The US and USSR never went to war because they were scared shitless of being nuked themselves, having nukes is a deterrent. Not having them promotes loooooong bloody wars.

Given the choices on the ballot........Absolutely!

I think that Nader would have definately done a much better job than Bush, Kerry or Gore.

Neither pointles nor insulting. You state something as common sense which might not be proved to be either 'common' (by which, I assume, we mean something along the lines of 'accepted by the majority') nor sense (by which I mean that having a star on a flag is a historical account of a political division - not a reason for perpetuating inequalities).



I don't accept "It's always been that way" as a logical argument, either. Just because our current model is feudal, doesn't make it 'best' now, or even an appropriate consideration.

As for 'California law isn't better than Oregon law just because California has more people. Which, in a nutshell, is what you're proposing..."

You continue to perpetuate strawman arguments. I didn't discuss the law of either state, or any other. I'm discussing nothing other than how voting might be conducted democratically. If you wish to oppose democratic government, knock yourself out - but use my actual arguments if you are going to involve me.



Why? Again with the "It was good enough for momma, it's good enough for me" approach to government and accountability?

Government wields the power allocated to it by it's people... unless the model is entirely non-democratic - in which case it wields the power allowed to it by the apathy of it's people.

So - in any nation that even pretend to be democratic, the 'city' can never be 'subservient' to the 'state'. Perhaps you were just arguing that the American model is corrupt and oppressive - in which case I agree.



Surely it would need something approaching half of the voters.... and, they'd all have to vote along similar party lines.



It's not that I 'didn't get it' - I just consider the argument of what was irrelevent to the discussion of what should be.

Dissolve states completely, allocating power locally. Or dissolve states completely and centralise. Either would be 'fairer' than this 'barony' model based on landgrabbing.



I wonder why there haven't been any civil wars?

(Ignoring for the moment that, since the seceding states had seceded.. it was an invasion of a sovereign power - not a 'civil' war, at all).

"I don't like it so it is a strawman." GI, I'm done. There is no point in talking to you as you deign not actually debate points.

[/leaves]

"I don't like it so it is a strawman." GI, I'm done. There is no point in talking to you as you deign not actually debate points.

[/leaves]

Pitch a fit all you like, just don't pretend it addresses what I actually wrote.

But then, you've created little more than a catalogue of strawmen in the thread so far, so stamping out in a huff is not a big loss.


Everything I don't like is a strawman...? You started talking about comparisons between state laws. Not only does that not address (in any way) the point you were (allegedly) responding to... it isn't even 'on topic'. You invoke a strawman, and then get miffed when you are called on it.

Yea! Honest answers!
Not knowing you were from Denmark, I give you a pass... not many Americans could tell you what the 17th was, either... What is wrong with election of Senators? Well, in the beginning, it was set up so that the various States would select the House of Representatives by popular election, and that the States would select the Senator either by appointment by the Governor, or by a vote of the Legislatures of that State (Legislature is like congress only at state level. All states have an upper (normally Senate) and lower (normally house of reps) except for Nebraska, which has only one house) The theory was that the Senate would balance the House (checks and balances) with "States Rights" versus "Peoples Rights" which most of the time was really NOT for the people anyway...

As it stands now, the various States of our Union do NOT have any direct representation at the Federal level... so they do like everybody else does and hire Lobbyists...

Repealing the 17th Amendment would put states rights in a stronger front, and it is theorized would help curtail some of the silliness that our Imperial Federal Government heaps down upon us to become burdens on us from the State level (even though it really comes from Federal level)

Last point, he was by far not the first to win even though he didn't have the majority of the votes. Electorial College does that sometimes... again, if you look at the demographics, the smaller states actually have more pull per capita than the larger states (min Electoral votes is 3, then they go up from there, by number of combined congressional districts and 2 senate seats)

Forefathers put Electorial College in there as a check and balance against a goofy vote from the populace of say a Hitler or a Stalin. Lately, there have been popular initiatives in some states that dictate that the votes are split by percentage of who gets what (btw, even doing it that way in all states, Gore STILL would have lost in 2000... darn small states...) and also that they MUST vote for who they were commanded to, even if that person turns out to be a necro/child molestor/wifebeater/tax cheat between election day and inauguration (well actually electorial day, which happens normally in early Dec after an early Nov election)

Hope that didn't bore you too much...


* Scratches head in confusion… *

Aren’t the states represented by their Governors? I thought that the Governors job, apart from running his state of course, was to keep contact with Washington and make sure that his / hers state got the funds (and other stuff) that it needed?

Ahh well, I might be a bit ignorant when it comes to the details in American politics…

If this was the idea with the two houses system, then I can see the idea behind repealing that amendment. But I wonder: why was the Constitution amended in the first place? There must have been a reason why it changed…