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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1300085)	5/11/2021 1:48:29 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

>> It's quirky, for sure, but it also cements the role that states play in electing our federal representatives, including the president. I don't see any way we could ever leave the EC behind. I sure wouldn't want to. But 38 states to ratify is a really tough uphill climb in the best of circumstances. But ratification to usurp the hard-negotiated protection of red states and give it to CA, NY, IL, MA, and a few others, I just don't see that happening. The arithmetic requires a mix of red and blue states, and I cannot envision red states giving away what was won in The Great Compromise, that which exists solely to protect the small and land-bound states from the predictable growth of the states that border on the seas. Everyone knew at the time those seaports would end up with the huge metropolis' that would control the direction of the country with a simple direct vote of the people. The Union would never have been formed without it, because you'd have a lot of states that just wouldn't cede independence without a bigger slice of the control. It was brilliant for the initial red states to hold out for it. I don't think there is any chance of changing anytime soon. Meaning, in my lifetime ;)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1300085)	5/11/2021 3:14:45 PM
From: PKRBKR	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

IMO, I wouldn't mind changing things so that the president is elected via national popular vote, but only IF the nation as a whole respected our system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the same people who want the president elected via popular vote also believe that the president should be an all-powerful leader who can do whatever the F he wants, because you know, he or she was elected by "the people." I'm on the opposite side here. States are losing more and more power and the country is devolving into a single federal entity. The federal government was intended to ONLY provide for a common defense, ensure interstate commerce and deal with other countries. Pretty much everything else was meant to be left to the individual states. A great example of overreach is the proposed police reform regulations. Why in the hell should the federal government get involved in local policing? Why are they involved in education? There are literally thousands of examples of federal incursion. Let's repeal the 17th amendment and give the states more oversight over the behemoth.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1300085)	5/11/2021 4:21:20 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By pocotrader rdkflorida2 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579680

I know that Never in the history of America has anyone at the federal level been elected by national popular vote. IMO, I wouldn't mind changing things so that the president is elected via national popular vote, but only IF the nation as a whole respected our system of checks and balances. [ Me either. ] Unfortunately, the same people who want the president elected via popular vote also believe that the president should be an all-powerful leader who can do whatever the F he wants, because you know, he or she was elected by "the people." The people who want an all powerful leader who does whatever the fuck he wants are now part of the GQP - the party of Big Baby Trump..