MCcins 44%, Obama 44% todays polls

[conley]

this is shaping up to be quite an exciting race...i still haven't seen EC numbers that put McCain anywhere near Obama, but the pop vote sure looks like it will be tight and Jonnycakes has the momentum

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

I would repel the 17th Amendment to give the States their fair say in federal government.   

elaborate. 

[pittypat65]

the hell with scrapping the electoral college.  if you want meaningful reform; demand english only ballots, provide for a voting competency test, raise the voting age to at least 21, require a history of full time employment and repeal the 19th amendment.   

Thats no surprise coming from an idiot like you. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

aw come on pitty, you really have no idea for whom or why you feeeeeeel like voting anyway.

[pittypat65]

aw come on pitty, you really have no idea for whom or why you feeeeeeel like voting anyway.

At least, unlike you grump, I have FEEEEEEEEEEELINGS. 

[Peter1469]

I would repel the 17th Amendment to give the States their fair say in federal government.   

elaborate. 

As you are aware, Sir Grump, the Senate used to be filled directly by the States, not by popular vote.  This ensured that the States had representation in the Senate.  The people had representation in the House.  America was designed to be a Republic after all.  The 17th Amendment drastically decreased the power of the States in this “Republic.” 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

I would repel the 17th Amendment to give the States their fair say in federal government.   

elaborate. 

As you are aware, Sir Grump, the Senate used to be filled directly by the States, not by popular vote.  This ensured that the States had representation in the Senate.  The people had representation in the House.  America was designed to be a Republic after all.  The 17th Amendment drastically decreased the power of the States in this “Republic.” 

explain how this has reduced the power of the states.

[Wowster]

I agree with Pittypat that we should have all primaries on the same day.

I also agree with Conley that it's time to get rid of the electoral college. People are not allegiant to their state anymore ... Americans move around too much.

There's really no state-by-state difference in voting trends anyway. The divide is rural/urban.

The EC should be eliminated because Americans move around too much?
The last time I checked, the number of EC votes for each state is based on the population within each state.
The number of House representatives for each state is based on each state's relative population.
The EC seems to be an instrument to employ equal representation and lessen the impact of voting corruption in urban areas.
I'm sure these leftists would love to enhance the impact of voting corruption! 

[Hibbidy Ha]

I agree with Pittypat that we should have all primaries on the same day.

I also agree with Conley that it's time to get rid of the electoral college. People are not allegiant to their state anymore ... Americans move around too much.

There's really no state-by-state difference in voting trends anyway. The divide is rural/urban.

The EC should be eliminated because Americans move around too much?
The last time I checked, the number of EC votes for each state is based on the population within each state.
The number of House representatives for each state is based on each state's relative population.
The EC seems to be an instrument to employ equal representation and lessen the impact of voting corruption in urban areas.
I'm sure these leftists would love to enhance the impact of voting corruption! 

Wow, what a surprise!  Another attack against the left!  It's all the left's fault!

[Vermouth]

The last time I checked, the number of EC votes for each state is based on the population within each state.

Not exactly ... according to Wikipedia, "each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress."

If it were based on population alone, the margins in the popular vote and in the electoral college vote would be equivalent.

[Wowster]

The last time I checked, the number of EC votes for each state is based on the population within each state.

Not exactly ... according to Wikipedia, "each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress."

If it were based on population alone, the margins in the popular vote and in the electoral college vote would be equivalent.

What?
Post your link

[Vermouth]

The last time I checked, the number of EC votes for each state is based on the population within each state.

Not exactly ... according to Wikipedia, "each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress."

If it were based on population alone, the margins in the popular vote and in the electoral college vote would be equivalent.

What?
Post your link

The Wikipedia link?

[Peter1469]

I would repel the 17th Amendment to give the States their fair say in federal government.   

elaborate. 

As you are aware, Sir Grump, the Senate used to be filled directly by the States, not by popular vote.  This ensured that the States had representation in the Senate.  The people had representation in the House.  America was designed to be a Republic after all.  The 17th Amendment drastically decreased the power of the States in this “Republic.” 

explain how this has reduced the power of the states.

First, the power to put a person in the senate was in itself great power.  A governor could put his “own man” in place; or the legislature could do it.  Either way it is fair to say that the senator would be from the governor’s party or the legislative majority’s party.  (I include both the governor and state legislators separately; in some states one has more power than the other.)  

Second, this power of “elevation” to the senate was given to the people; recall that the Founders did not think this necessary (that is what the House was for after all)- and I do not believe that this issue was contentious during the Convention.  The people are finicky and one could end up with states with various competing interests in the power positions: governor, state legislature, federal legislature.  Under the Pre-17th amendment model at least the state had a senator to represent it at the federal level.  

The Constitutional model meant for the House to represent the people, and the Senate to represent the states.

The US is a Republic: the federal government has limited powers; the states have many more powers; and theoretically the people have the remaining powers.  The 17th Amendment was a power grab by the federal government to snatch much more power than it was allocated under the Constitution.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

so your argument is that the power of incumbent state govt was reduced.  but actually the voice of people was amplified and in a representative govt is this not desirable.  further, i received the term state as meaning the people through their elected representatives.  regardless, the actual impact of this seems more "theoretical" than demonstrable.   

[Peter1469]

so your argument is that the power of incumbent state govt was reduced.  but actually the voice of people was amplified and in a representative govt is this not desirable.  further, i received the term state as meaning the people through their elected representatives.  regardless, the actual impact of this seems more "theoretical" than demonstrable.   

That was the Framer’s model.  And the incumbent State government is also a reflection of the people’s will.  In fact people have closer ties to their local governments because of the closeness (in distance or in corruption, depending upon the state).