Giuliani: Is he as bad as Clinton, or is he even worse?

[srothstein]

Sure, the elections will look like the free elections we've enjoyed in the past. But without free speech they will be rigged just as surely as a WWE Steel Cage match.

On this, I would point out that it was a Republican president that signed the bill, and both parties supported it. It was also upheld as Constitutional by our current SCOTUS.

And I have no idea how anyone could justify any of that, especially the president who said it was unconstitutional and signed it anyway.

It might be time to break out the ladders.

I am pretty sure it is not yet that time, but I am also beginning to agree with the quote that it is too late to stop it and too early to start shooting. Not fully there yet, but can see the point.

Obviously, we would also need to change the electoral college to force it to obey the popular vote (I like the "one elector votes the way each congressional district does, plus two vote the way the whole state did" concept).

I would urge you to think more carefully about this, Stephan.

Our current electoral college system comes from "the great compromise" that gave birth to our constitution. The idea was to prevent the large population (urban) states from ignoring the interests of the small population (rural) states. Having 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, gives the small states more influence than they would have otherwise.

If the Electoral College was reduced to one elector from each district with his vote bound to that of the district, urban interests would eventually overpower rural ones when selecting the president.

By retaining 2 "at large" electors from each state, your proposal only partly dilutes the power of the small states. But to me, giving over any power to the large urban states is too much. The urban interests already have too much power.

Guess which segment of the population (urban or rural) is more in tune with low taxes, small government, and gun rights.

What kind of judges do you think "urban" presidents are likely to appoint? How might they interpret the constitution and the 2A? (Maybe the same way "urban" mayors do?)

As it is, the constitution allows for states to apportion the votes of electors and some already do. If it were up to me, I would amend the constitution to make "winner take all" electoral voting mandatory.

The problem I have with the winner take all system is just exactly what you say is wrong with mine. Consider how many people are in New York and how it forces the state. Then compare Houston, DFW, and San Antonio areas tot he rest of the state of Texas. Which way gives more power to the urban areas?

But to be honest, I think we would need to change the way districts are drawn to get my system to really improve things. We need to stop gerrymandering and make the drawing of districts a logical process with each one being as concentrated as it could be. Start in one corner of the state and build in blocks from there, or start in one point in a city and add in circles from there, then filling in. Another change might be for a large enough city or county to have more than one representative at large for that area. Say Harris County had enough population for 4 representatives. Instead of separating the county into districts, it would get 4 at large for the county since the county would have fairly homogeneous needs (not necessarily political views, but the needs would be there). I don't know if that would take a Constitutional change or just the laws implementing it.

Two more changes to the constitution I would make if I could would be:

1) Making it mandatory that one show proof of citizenship in order to vote.

2) When apportioning congressional districts, only citizens could be counted as making up the population of a district.

Under the current system, aliens, legal and otherwise, aren't supposed to vote - though this is widely flouted. But everyone counted in a census counts towards congressional apportionment. So if a region has a large influx of illegals, for instance, it's congressional representation will increase over time. And the congressmen representing those regions will vote the interests of the illegals because the existence of their districts depends on having lots of illegals around.

I am not sure either of these would take a true amendment. I know that the first is Constitutional and proper and I fully support it. It just seems logical that since only citizens can vote, you need to prove your citizenship to be able to.

The second may need an amendment to the census rules in the Constitution. I don't believe it would be in line with what the forefathers thought, given their compromise on how to count the slaves..

[frankie_the_yankee]

Sure, the elections will look like the free elections we've enjoyed in the past. But without free speech they will be rigged just as surely as a WWE Steel Cage match.

On this, I would point out that it was a Republican president that signed the bill, and both parties supported it. It was also upheld as Constitutional by our current SCOTUS.

And I have no idea how anyone could justify any of that, especially the president who said it was unconstitutional and signed it anyway.

I fully agree. It is shameful the way Bush passed the buck like that, miscalculating that the SCOTUS would absorb the political heat for him. Absolutely disgusting.

But who would have thought that O'Connor was so addled brained to vote with the Leftists on the Court against all reason?

What a sorry mess!

It might be time to break out the ladders.

I am pretty sure it is not yet that time, but I am also beginning to agree with the quote that it is too late to stop it and too early to start shooting. Not fully there yet, but can see the point.

Again, I agree.

Obviously, we would also need to change the electoral college to force it to obey the popular vote (I like the "one elector votes the way each congressional district does, plus two vote the way the whole state did" concept).

I would urge you to think more carefully about this, Stephan.

Our current electoral college system comes from "the great compromise" that gave birth to our constitution. The idea was to prevent the large population (urban) states from ignoring the interests of the small population (rural) states. Having 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, gives the small states more influence than they would have otherwise.

If the Electoral College was reduced to one elector from each district with his vote bound to that of the district, urban interests would eventually overpower rural ones when selecting the president.

By retaining 2 "at large" electors from each state, your proposal only partly dilutes the power of the small states. But to me, giving over any power to the large urban states is too much. The urban interests already have too much power.

Guess which segment of the population (urban or rural) is more in tune with low taxes, small government, and gun rights.

What kind of judges do you think "urban" presidents are likely to appoint? How might they interpret the constitution and the 2A? (Maybe the same way "urban" mayors do?)

As it is, the constitution allows for states to apportion the votes of electors and some already do. If it were up to me, I would amend the constitution to make "winner take all" electoral voting mandatory.

The problem I have with the winner take all system is just exactly what you say is wrong with mine. Consider how many people are in New York and how it forces the state. Then compare Houston, DFW, and San Antonio areas tot he rest of the state of Texas. Which way gives more power to the urban areas?

But to be honest, I think we would need to change the way districts are drawn to get my system to really improve things. We need to stop gerrymandering and make the drawing of districts a logical process with each one being as concentrated as it could be. Start in one corner of the state and build in blocks from there, or start in one point in a city and add in circles from there, then filling in. Another change might be for a large enough city or county to have more than one representative at large for that area. Say Harris County had enough population for 4 representatives. Instead of separating the county into districts, it would get 4 at large for the county since the county would have fairly homogeneous needs (not necessarily political views, but the needs would be there). I don't know if that would take a Constitutional change or just the laws implementing it.

It's confusing. I'm confused. Gerrymandered districts are a big problem, and both major parties are equally guilty. Districts should be as compact as possible,

But the foxes will never willingly let go of the chicken coop.

Even if a new party took power somehow, I'll bet they would do the same thing.

Two more changes to the constitution I would make if I could would be:

1) Making it mandatory that one show proof of citizenship in order to vote.

2) When apportioning congressional districts, only citizens could be counted as making up the population of a district.

Under the current system, aliens, legal and otherwise, aren't supposed to vote - though this is widely flouted. But everyone counted in a census counts towards congressional apportionment. So if a region has a large influx of illegals, for instance, it's congressional representation will increase over time. And the congressmen representing those regions will vote the interests of the illegals because the existence of their districts depends on having lots of illegals around.

I am not sure either of these would take a true amendment. I know that the first is Constitutional and proper and I fully support it. It just seems logical that since only citizens can vote, you need to prove your citizenship to be able to.

The second may need an amendment to the census rules in the Constitution. I don't believe it would be in line with what the forefathers thought, given their compromise on how to count the slaves..

You're right that it would go against the Founders' original philosophy. But that philosophy was flawed as we know in this area. (It a,l,lowed for slavery and it counted slaves as 3/5 of non slaves.)

But I think you can make an argument that a congressional district could/should be defined by the number of electors (i.e. adult citizens) and "electors to be" (i.e. citizens not of legal age) rather than simply by the number of humans, many of which cannot vote or hold office.

[KBCraig]

Just for Frankie...