Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1562)	1/11/2001 12:04:46 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

You really should..it makes perfect sense, and isn't that what they need in Washington?

To: Ilaine who wrote (1562)	1/11/2001 12:15:04 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

CB - ...I want him to suggest it to George Allen, our new Senator, and Tom Davis, our Congressman. He and I both worked for them, so maybe if he mentions that it will be read by the men themselves rather than just a minion. Don't forget to treat it like a patent search and check the news since Nov. 7. While I don't remember a serious or complete treatment, there were some similar mentions, possibly in stories about the red and blue USAToday map using mostly counties, but precincts may have come up. I don't however, remember districts. Would using districts not also create an incentive against creating safe districts with overwhelming demographic consistency? Regards, Don

To: Ilaine who wrote (1562)	1/11/2001 12:20:08 AM
From: CVJ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

It doesn't even require an amendment. The Electoral votes are one for each Congressional District AND one for each Senator, or two for each State. A proper campaign across all states to revise their rules to apportion one electoral vote according to the majority popular vote in each Cong. District and to award the two Senatorial votes to the winner of the state-wide popular vote, would make the process much more fair and satisfy the existing Constitutional requirement. However, I agree that a proper Constitutional Amendment would be a much better method for permanency and uniformity. I only offer the alternate method as an alternate. It would be quicker than an Amendment, but not necessarily agreed to by all the states, but many would change. With a Constitutional Amendment you need 75% of the states to agree within 7 yrs - all or nothing? 7 years? I think working one at a time would accomplish more as the results were shown to the dissenters. Only an old man's opinion. Any discussion?