reply to post by ZindoDoone
But swing states do not dictate elections. Whether or not you win FL, OH, and PA, you're still SOL if you can't come up with 202 electoral votes.
So if you feel that your state has become irrelevant, perhaps its because your state has failed to hold its elected representatives accountable.
Afterall, the parties can't award those 202 electoral votes- that's done by a majority of the electorate in each state. And although it's not
actually my business, it's logical to ask whether you have been a part of that problem or not. Personally, I go out of my way to vote a split ticket,
including 3rd party candidates (which from the Democratic point of view, makes me a pain in the ass, because they have a voter registration advantage
in my state assembly district and can never seem to win it)
Perhaps if the Republican party hadn't felt so confident in running on the blind loyalty of the base they wouldn't have lost their hold on North
Carolina and Virginia. If conservatives in those states had enforced the standard, perhaps by replacing a few under-performers with 3rd party
candidates or independents, maybe you would have less to complain about today.
A republic and a democracy are not entirely
mutually exclusive concepts. They do conflict at times, which actually works out well because we
need to a balance and mutual check between the facts that a democracy is unwieldy and a republic invites corruption. We have certainly not perfected
that balance, and the committee structure is an excellent example of that point.
Likewise you are correct that a large part of the issue becomes moot if the federal government is returned to its constitutional boundaries as
enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 (which I believe you were referring to via the state sovereignty point).
I cannot help noticing however that these problems have little to do with, and in fact are probably almost completely unknown to, the voters
themselves in the swing states and elsewhere. Urbanized voting blocks aren't making any decisions. They're doing the same thing that the rural folks
were doing when the Republicans were in charge- being patronized and used at 2 year intervals and otherwise ignored and/or overruled by a government
which sees loose guidelines where it should see a precipice.
Clearly the parties would not cater to the swing states if they were facing rebellion from the majority of their members in congress, who are from
other states. Our own representatives are complicit in the sins of the committees or the parties would just have to find another way to kiss electoral
butt. So I do not suspect that we would see an improvement even if we went to a more purely democratic system.
For instance, I have thought for some time that we might benefit from decentralization. Perhaps the cabinet posts should become separate elected
executive offices, answerable to the president only in matters of conflict with other executive agencies, and each congressional committee become its
own single-purpose congress (staffed by part timers who get the same pay that jurors do and like jurors can be fined more than they are paid for
contempt at the first sign of an attitude problem- and parking at the capital should be a surrealistic nightmare that gets at least one congressman a
ticket every day- but I digress).
But I have come to realize that among the many gaping holes in that well intentioned idea, the crown jewel is that it assumes that our current system
is screwing up by accident, which is a stretch to say the least.
My opinion is that since America can't seem to agree on who is responsible for the present state of affairs, (and indeed a large plurality if not a
majority are drinking the kool-aid on either side and thus will simply blame eachother) getting the djinni back in the bottle is a very tricky
proposition for this country. I believe that carefully coordinated omissions are the tool for the job (as positive action seems likely to result in
violence and complete inaction is clearly ineffective).
When I say coordinated omissions, I mean embracing the fact that the government can't actually force us to do anything, and that we could just as
easily ask forgiveness as permission for the things that the government says we can't do.The one thing that seems to get lost in all the
technicalities of politics and economics is that whatever the rationale might be, ultimately we do all the work.
If they can't stop illegal aliens from crossing the border, I wonder if they could really stop me and a few hundred other out of work carpenters from
going down and building a wall at the border. In fact we could probably raise donations for the cause and effectively make it a DIY stimulus package.
It's an option. Are we there yet? I think not. But some would say yes, and more power to them- they can even take credit for the idea if they do it
and I won't complain. I'd be happy to see the resistance to our government take a form other than calls for a struggle that will destroy our way of
life, which I suspect we've all noticed from one source or another over the last 5 or 6 months.