18-10-2004 09:50									#181
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

imran, if a state ignores federal laws, how can it still be part of the union?

	18-10-2004 09:52									#182
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

It was concieved as a sort of veto. The state would recognize the limited federal authority, it just would not recognize federal laws on certain individual things. Remember, this was before the Civil War, when the federal government had VERY little power.

	18-10-2004 09:56									#183
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

federal laws, derived from powers which the constitution does explicitly grant the federal gov't, excluded, right?

	18-10-2004 10:01									#184
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not entirely. A lot of the discussion was based on tariffs. However, those that wrote the Resolutions (Madison and Jefferson) would not ones to advocate for secession (especially since Madison is considered father of the Constitution). For example, simply since the US doesn't follow every UN resolution doesn't mean we have seperated ourselves from that body. Not to say the original government was like the UN, of course.

	18-10-2004 10:03									#185
	Get a bigger avatar today!

what i mean is... powers which are explicitly granted to the federal gov't (warmaking, foreign relations, currency regulation, etc.) could not be nullified... right? that's the line between mere nullification and all out secession, right?

	18-10-2004 10:08									#186
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the 'Nullification Crisis' of 1832, the states tried (or thought they should be able) to void a law that it thought unconstitutional. So it seems that part of it is that the state must think the law is unconstitutional and overreaching by the federal government.

One interesting distinction is that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were done before Marbury v. Madison, which gave the SCOTUS the right to decide unconstitutionality. Nullification was done afterwards, but still there wasn't an attempt to seceed at that time.

	18-10-2004 16:41									#187
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui One interesting distinction is that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were done before Marbury v. Madison, which gave the SCOTUS the right to decide unconstitutionality.

And here I was thinking that their powers came from the Constitution...

	18-10-2004 16:50									#188
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nope, judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution.

	18-10-2004 17:29									#189
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Except that it existed before Marbury v Madison and was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, so though no one had explicitly declared it before that case everyone agreed it existed (http://artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/ca...ry.html#marbury)

	18-10-2004 18:30									#190
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Interesting how the "states rights" folks utterly ignore the simple fact that since EC votes are tied to a simple majority vote in the state, the EC does nothing to protect the interests of any one state.

	18-10-2004 19:09									#191
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.

Well Democrats in New York shouldn't bother show up either because their votes are redundant.

	18-10-2004 19:11									#192
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap Interesting how the "states rights" folks utterly ignore the simple fact that since EC votes are tied to a simple majority vote in the state, the EC does nothing to protect the interests of any one state.

Except for the fact that Bush is going to win because of those two extra votes allocated to states qua states.

	18-10-2004 19:56									#193
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Except that it existed before Marbury v Madison and was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, so though no one had explicitly declared it before that case everyone agreed it existed

Um... no. Firstly, the Federalist are not binding on ANYTHING and where never treated as such. They are merely propaganda pieces. Secondly, it was a very huge case which was unexpected by many people. It was not universally agreed upon that the SCOTUS could overturn federal law, saying it was opposed to the Constitution. and most people did not think it existed. Jefferson believed it was a wrong decision, but since it wasn't used again during his lifetime, it didn't seem to matter (since the ruling came out in his favor). Why do you think it is such a famous case?

Also if you read the Second Kentucky Resolution, it says the states should be the arbiters of what is Constitutional and whether federal law is violating that. So no, they didn't believe the court should have the right.

	18-10-2004 19:56									#194
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I have to say that I agree with GePap here.

I've seen how much more representative (ironically enough!) proportional representation has made government in NZ, and when looking at other nations without a similar system, I have been surprised and puzzled that the US' system seems even further off this than the norm.

Although until starting on this thread I could see no reason for this cumbersome-sounding Electoral College way, I at least have seen that the point is to protect the interests of States. OK, fair enough. State interests need to be defended at the Federal level. But what does that have to do with the Presidential vote? The President does not decide everything, and as far as I can see as long as each State has its own government and representation in the Senate and House of Reps then there are your protected interests.

I still don't see why a simple 'one vote from one American counts as one vote for one candidate' system is opposed by PLATO and others, unless there were purely partisan political reasons for it (eg one side would always win, or something). With respect to water rights, as the example goes, does a President elected by, say, California voters, have the power to divert water from AZ reservoirs to supply CA, where AZ voters voted for the other guy? If this is the case there are FAR worse problems than with the Electoral College system. But this is not the case, is it? I'd hope that it was the State governments of both AZ and CA as well as perhaps the Federal government that would have to agree on this.

Which sounds more ridiculous - saying that State rights are eroded if less populous States have a smaller say in who the President is (only the President, not their own representation at Federal level), or having a system where a President can be elected with a majority of Americans having voted for the other alternative? The President is supposed to represent the affairs of America as a whole, and thus should be representative of the majority of voting Americans' wishes. State governments and Senators are supposed to represent their State - this does not seem to be the Presidents' job.

Can someone explain how things would be significantly different, seeing as one of the two main candidates are bound to be elected in each case ANYWAY?

	18-10-2004 20:36									#195
	Inflate your Upload Space

Mr. WhereItsAt:

1) Small states are protected because states get two extra votes for each senator. This allows the candidate favored by the small states to carry an election when an election is essentially even. This happened in 2000. Bush won the election solely because of the extra two votes he received from each of the 10 more states he won than Gore. ("Twenty bonus electors.") If the current elections close, Bush will win again because he will have won more states, i.e., the small states.

All this shows is that the balance intended by the founding fathers works.

2) As to proportional splitting of electors according to the popular vote, this is entirely possible under today's system. Each state can allocate its electors any why the State Legislature designates. Thus, for example, if Nader got 5% in Kalifornia, he would be allocated up to 3 electors. In a close election, those electors might be decisive, giving Nader a lot of bargaining power as to who becomes the next president.

So I propose that all the large states, such as Kalifornia and NewYork divide it electors according to the vote.

	18-10-2004 21:00									#196
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: OK, fair enough. State interests need to be defended at the Federal level. But what does that have to do with the Presidential vote?

Only that the presidential vote was also part of the power distribution compromise made at the constitutional convention. If you reopen up the issue for the office of the president, you reopen up the entire compromise.

	18-10-2004 21:08									#197
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Mr. WhereItsAt: 1) Small states are protected because states get two extra votes for each senator. This allows the candidate favored by the small states to carry an election when an election is essentially even. This happened in 2000. Bush won the election solely because of the extra two votes he received from each of the 10 more states he won than Gore. ("Twenty bonus electors.") If the current elections close, Bush will win again because he will have won more states, i.e., the small states. All this shows is that the balance intended by the founding fathers works.

I see... interesting. Perhaps they actually foresaw that a population bias in some areas would mean these places had a much larger effect on the Presidential vote than the rest of the country. It still seems more than a little odd to me that a system that favours the more numerous, smaller, less populous areas would be deliberately put in place however. The C in C can be elected by a minority? There can't be too many nations with fair democratic elections that can claim the same thing!

	18-10-2004 21:23									#198
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS Only that the presidential vote was also part of the power distribution compromise made at the constitutional convention. If you reopen up the issue for the office of the president, you reopen up the entire compromise.

States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

	18-10-2004 21:41									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

The people cannot change the way the electors are allocated. Only the state legislatures.

But, beyond that, I agree that Kalifornia and New York and other states where Democrats dominate should allocate their electoral votes.

	18-10-2004 21:46									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt I see... interesting. Perhaps they actually foresaw that a population bias in some areas would mean these places had a much larger effect on the Presidential vote than the rest of the country. It still seems more than a little odd to me that a system that favours the more numerous, smaller, less populous areas would be deliberately put in place however. The C in C can be elected by a minority? There can't be too many nations with fair democratic elections that can claim the same thing!

You might also be surprised that there is no right to vote for president. That was not the original plan. That developed as a matter of practice, and is still discretionary according to the wishes of a state's legislature.

A major reason the Supreme's acted in 2000 was to head off the Florida legislature who were going to appoint the electors of the state if the Sec. of State could not certify the elections by the statutory deadline. Since the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount, that could not be accomplished by the deadline. So the Supreme Court of the US simply called a halt and let the results of the election as it stood after the second recount be certified.

	18-10-2004 21:48									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned The people cannot change the way the electors are allocated. Only the state legislatures.

Except in states where referendums can be passed, like in Colorado, or California.

quote: But, beyond that, I agree that Kalifornia and New York and other states where Democrats dominate should allocate their electoral votes.

You are so cute-NOT. All states should.

	18-10-2004 21:55									#202
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Except in states where referendums can be passed, like in Colorado, or California.

This not something that the Constitution of the United States permits State Constitutions or referrenda to resolve, as the sole and exclusive power to regulate how the electors are allocated is expressly granted to the State Legislatures, not the States.

	18-10-2004 21:55									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap You are so cute-NOT. All states should.

You go first.

	18-10-2004 21:57									#204
	Got spare money?

Republicans! We have a simple method of ruining the Democrat party forever! Support proportionate delegates in just three states: New York, California and Massachusettes!!!!!!!

	18-10-2004 21:58									#205
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

I don't care how the state legislatures decide how they choose their electors. This is somewhat removed from the question at hand.

	18-10-2004 21:58									#206
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ned This not something that the Constitution of the United States permits State Constitutions or referrenda to resolve, as the sole and exclusive power to regulate how the electors are allocated is expressly granted to the State Legislatures, not the States.

And if the state legislatures by law allow the people to chose, well, there, done. Like in Colorado.

	18-10-2004 22:01									#207
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned Republicans! We have a simple method of ruining the Democrat party forever! Support proportionate delegates in just three states: New York, California and Massachusettes!!!!!!!

Add Illinois as well... It would give the collar counties to Chicago, and downstate Illinois the opportunity for their votes to mean something.

	18-10-2004 22:03									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't care how the state legislatures decide how they choose their electors. This is somewhat removed from the question at hand.

But Dan, you are ignoring the opportunity of a lifetime. Republicans can introduce proporationate allocation in New York, California and Massachusettes. If the Democrats back the proposal, they are ruined as a national party. If they oppose the proposals, they are viewed as anti-Democratic.

	18-10-2004 22:04									#209
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap And if the state legislatures by law allow the people to chose, well, there, done. Like in Colorado.

True. But typically referrenda are allowed by the State's constitution, not by the State Legislature. I am not sure how the particular Colorado issue got on the ballot.

	18-10-2004 22:05									#210
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ming Add Illinois as well... It would give the collar counties to Chicago, and downstate Illinois the opportunity for their votes to mean something.

So true. Illinois is now solidly in the need of proportionate division of electors. Chicago has become way too dominate.