korab rules Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I understand his point. My point is the current administration would LOVE to fast-track immunity. What a thank you present it would be for 20 million new voters to come in and count in a popular vote. No question - the left would love it - but there is no way a constitutional amendment would be passed doing away with the electoral college. Don't forget the actual process involved: Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states. The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” You really think 3/4 of the states would approve this amendment when more than half would be disenfranchising themselves in the process?
korab rules Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 The fact that even if they switched to Popular vote you'd still have to be a citizen and registered voter to vote. I'm not so sure this was the case in Ohio or Illinois two years ago... And one man, one vote would be a step back for some frequent fliers.
Taro T Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I beg to differ on the bolded point, the proof you seek is in the annual budget handouts to the larger states. It's balanced by population outside of earmarks, which is an entirely different beast. As for R.I. as an example, I wasn't being factually specific on their E.C. votes, merely I.E. with the broader point to be made that it makes no difference what so ever for that particular state because they do not receive the larger payouts via support of an administration running for election/re-election. The larger states do, as they have much more of an impact on the election itself. But as I stated, it wouldn't matter in either case, someone just pointed out that the popular vote went against the grain of the E.C. only 3 times in history, that's more than enough proof within itself to show the relevance of the E.C. is negligable at best and insignicant altogether at worst. Except the data doesn't support your contention. According to the www.taxfoundation.org, the states you mentioned as being the biggest beneficiaries of largess (Ohio, Florida, NY, California, Texas) actually finish in the 31, 34, 42, 43, 35th slots in terms of tax $'s paid in versus received back. And only Ohio gets more back than they pay in. Whereas the Dakotas and Montana finish 6, 8, & 11th respectively and all get at least $1.47 back for what they put in. (This is based on data from 2005 which is the most recent year they have tabulated.)
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I'm not so sure this was the case in Ohio or Illinois two years ago... And one man, one vote would be a step back for some frequent fliers. Or the 248 in Florida. I agree that this isn't a pressing issue. Golisano seems to like wasting money on political trinkets...which leads me to question what's really going on?
shrader Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Ignoring the issues at the state level for a second, wouldn't a move like this give more incentive to vote on the individual level?
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Except the data doesn't support your contention. According to the www.taxfoundation.org, the states you mentioned as being the biggest beneficiaries of largess (Ohio, Florida, NY, California, Texas) actually finish in the 31, 34, 42, 43, 35th slots in terms of tax $'s paid in versus received back. And only Ohio gets more back than they pay in. Whereas the Dakotas and Montana finish 6, 8, & 11th respectively and all get at least $1.47 back for what they put in. (This is based on data from 2005 which is the most recent year they have tabulated.) I was speaking in amounts, not percentages.
korab rules Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Ignoring the issues at the state level for a second, wouldn't a move like this give more incentive to vote on the individual level? If the presidential election was the only race on the ticket, yes, certainly. But that is not the case at all, so no.
dumb_dumb88 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Or the 248 in Florida. I agree that this isn't a pressing issue. Golisano seems to like wasting money on political trinkets...which leads me to question what's really going on? A run at the federal level perhaps? It is odd the way he throws money away on politics.
nobody Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I understand his point. My point is the current administration would LOVE to fast-track immunity. What a thank you present it would be for 20 million new voters to come in and count in a popular vote. I believe Reagan signed into law a bill that allowed illegal immigrants amnesty to become citizens. Also George W was a big supporter of a bill to allow illegal immigrants getting their citizenship.
nobody Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 If I recall - Golisano spent most of his money a few elections ago to support republican candidates. His belief was that neither party should have total control of government. He was behind that switch of parties from that couple of democrats that tied up the NY govt.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I believe Reagan signed into law a bill that allowed illegal immigrants amnesty to become citizens. Also George W was a big supporter of a bill to allow illegal immigrants getting their citizenship. There are $$$ reasons in a growing economy as well. When things go bad, you have 16% real unemployment. When things are good...you need someone to clean and garden your summer home for $8 an hour when Gringo won't do it.
nobody Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 There are $$$ reasons in a growing economy as well. When things go bad, you have 16% real unemployment. When things are good...you need someone to clean and garden your summer home for $8 an hour when Gringo won't do it. Some of those 16% would gladly do it right now if those Richie Rich's would spend some of their corporate tax breaks/tax loop holes.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Some of those 16% would gladly do it right now if those Richie Rich's would spend some of their corporate tax breaks/tax loop holes. That was my point. In a time of excess, cost of labor needs to be kept down to afford efficient growth. Let'em in. Now the states are bankrupt, no good jobs to be found, and that same population is a drain. It's like buying on margin with humans. We need to win the Cup soon.
FogBat Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 A run at the federal level perhaps? It is odd the way he throws money away on politics. He is a bit of a crank, isn't he?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.