This is another example of how the nation is polarized and divided.
This one is chiefly urban/rural.... or at least, big city vs small town and countryside.
Small town and country people are more accustomed to functioning in a low-population-density environment, with far less interaction with other people, and FAR less interaction with government and government services.
By necessity, country folks and small-town folks are more accustomed to "doing for yourself" and more likely to take an attitude of "just leave me alone and I'll be fine".
It is another example of how "one size fits all government" doesn't work very well, and possibly an argument for decentralization.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
With the exception of only white land owners I do kinda wish that we would go back to that old system. It was a better way of determining who became President because it prevented mob mentality (popular vote) from determining how our country was run. And that was something which our Founding Fathers truely wished to avoid, the Mob Mentality. They knew that with mob mentality individual rights were more likely to be trampled or just plain ignored. It was also why Referendums for laws were not used originally also.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
And the tea-baggers would love to regress to the 1600s when only land owners could vote.....which is no less true than the native Americans thing....There is a smidgen of truth here...
I would like to throw an idea out there. How about the electoral college actually represent the population but dividing the electoral votes appropriately by percentages. If a state votes 60 percent one way and 40 percent another way, divide the electoral college votes that way. I didn't look to see if it would have changed any recent elections if it were done that way, but why wouldn't this be a more fair and balanced way to use the electoral vote?
The Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Why not apportion the electoral votes based on the individual results in each congressional district within the states then award the extra 2 (Senatorial votes) to the winner of the per state congressional electoral votes. If it ends in a tie then split the 2. This COULD motivate candidates to visit more states and reduce the prevalence of ‘swing states’
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure" - 2006 Senator Obama...leadership failure indeed!
There are alot of us in the heart of America that feel like we have no real say in things and a few huge population centers along both coast in liberal cities run the show. This urban population makes decisions that directly effect rural areas and they do so based on alot of misinformation care of groups like the Sierra Club. We resent having our industrial base and our local economies savaged by these people who really don't have a clue. I don't know what the answer is though, in a democracy the majority rules and the majority of people are now far removed from the nuts and bolts industries that provide them with lifes ever day necessities and they tend to think rural America is a bunch of people missing their front teeth and marrying their cousins. This arrogant and condescending attitude is one of the reasons jobs go overseas as mines and sawmills are shut down due to absurd regulations that make it to expensive to operate in the USA.